Dear Editor,
At the end of last year I wrote the following:
“As Guyanese engage in the usual old year stock-taking, reflection will also invariably focus on what lies ahead. And somewhere within the cauldron of musings must be the recognition that ‘enough is enough!’ A quarter century of PNC rule that debilitated a nation once termed the breadbasket of the Caribbean within which was showcased the region’s Garden City, was followed by the euphoria of a new dawn in 1992. Sadly, after sixteen years, the dawn is yet to usher in the longed for new day. And so, it is time for Guyanese to set for themselves, a goal of a new political culture – one that has been hovering on the horizon for some years now.
“This new political culture must springboard on the reality that it is time to eschew politics that appeals to ethnic interest. Out of this recognition must step forth a set of leaders who can rise above ethnic appeal and harness the national consciousness. And, contrary to the skepticism of some, these leaders are within our midst – persons such as Vincent Alexander, James McAllister, Ravi Dev, Eric Phillips, Peter Ramsaroop, Paul Hardy, Deborah Backer, Andaiye, Moses Nagamootoo, Yesu Persaud, Joe Singh, Stanley Ming and hopefully, Khemraj Ramjattan and Raphael Trotman.
“Their experiences over the last five years should, by now, have brought Ramjattan and Trotman to the realization that while the AFC is a necessary instrument for a changed political culture, it is not a sufficient force. So a desire to captain the ship of change must give way to a need for collective leadership that would be a sufficient force to catalyze that change.”
Well it’s the end of 2010 and that coming together of leaders who seem to epitomize the desired change has not been realized. Meanwhile the AFC claims that it’s growing from strength to strength and that it will win the 2011 elections. While that movement has not evolved into the stimulating and inclusive new force that so many of us had hoped for and it continues to be plagued by internal problems, it may still provide a better alternative to the PPP and the PNC as far as governance and new politics is concerned, at least going by its rhetoric. The problem, of course, is that history is replete with examples of politicians and movements that not only failed to live up to their rhetoric (Forbes Burnham and Bharrat Jagdeo being good
examples) but often times became worse than what they replaced.
So while not many outside of the AFC give it a real chance at victory, the focus remains on the PPP and the PNC, with presidential candidate-jostling taking centre stage. Each side claims that its track record in government has been better than the other, although to the discerning individual they seem to be two sides of the same coin.
Meanwhile the PPP presidential hopefuls are being criticized as more of the same since they have been part and parcel of the current government and never took definitive stands against wrong doings – real or perceived.
However the PNC is now claiming that its presidential candidates will usher in the desired change yet paradoxically none of the candidates are a break from the old PNC mould, all have been associated with the previous PNC government and none have ever – either while a part of the PNC government or thereafter – condemned any of the excesses of that government, including rigged elections. So the logic used to categorize them as candidates of change is mindboggling at best.
The simple reality, as Henry Jeffrey pointed out in his letter (SN Jan 1, 2011), is that “Ralph Ramkarran does not publicly attack the PPP/C for similar reasons that the PNC leaders did not publicly attack the PNC. The existence of any operational organization requires levels of loyalty and under the Westminster system collective responsibility usually applies. But more importantly, history teaches that we should avoid making a fetish of this kind of personalized public condemnation.
“We should remember that insiders have contributed significantly to some of the most fundamental national and international political changes of our time and it is doubtful that they would have ever reached the position to do so had they taken to lambasting their colleagues in public…. Change is brought about by a dialectical interplay of various internal and external forces and is not usually entirely the result of outsider activism.”
Besides, as some of those who were a part of Burnham’s cabal have pointed out in exchanges with me, the fight against excesses and wrong doings takes place internally.
In any case, the reality is that in the same manner that the PNC base support will continue to vote PNC, in the same manner the PPP base support will continue to vote PPP as each hopes to exclude the other from power. Meanwhile the AFC’s claim that it has made significant inroads into the core support of both the PPP and the PNC will either be borne out or put to rest sometime this year once election results are declared. However, as Mr. Jeffrey pointed out, based on current realities, the PPP seems to have the best chance of retaining power.
The question is this: would this still be possible regardless of who is the presidential candidate? For previous elections the answer to this question would have been an emphatic affirmative. For 2011 the candidate could very well make the difference.
Given that current Home Affairs Minister, Clement Rohee, is not considered a serious contender and that Donald Ramotar has now become a liability, it would seem that the presidential candidate position would be a straight contest between Moses Nagamootoo and Ralph Ramkarran. Mr.Jeffrey opines that Ralph Ramkarran would be a better candidate, but he may be speaking for Henry Jeffrey rather than the PPP mass support, its leadership and the public. The facts are that Moses Nagamootoo is still one of the most well liked and popular PPP leaders with massive grass roots support; that he has more crossover appeal than any other candidate; that his ability to socialize and network among all strata of the nation is a quality that he epitomizes; and that he is the only PPP leader who has taken principled positions publicly against Jagdeo and his governance. In fact, among all the candidates – both PPP and PNC – Nagamootoo is the only one who has publicly spoken out against the government of his party and suffered as a result. In effect Nagamootoo’s ‘wide-ranging experience, integrity, general demeanour and commitment to fairness and dispassionate discussion’ are documented and well known, and do not have to be inferred.
Consequently, given that this time around the elections are not necessarily a shoe-in for the PPP, it would make sense that they put forth the best candidate to maximize their chances of winning the elections. Of course, if the AFC is to be believed, then Moses or no Moses, the PPP is out. Ditto for the PNC. Naturally, proving both these entities wrong is a challenge that Moses can handle better than anyone else in the PPP.
Yours faithfully,
Annan Boodram
