Dear Editor,
Some may see the claim made by President Ramotar that the APNU and AFC have manipulated the results of the November 2011 elections thereby denying the PPP the “minimum of 53 percent of the votes” as ludicrous or clutching at dry grass. The more important story here is that this issue exposes the barefacedness and sense of entitlement of the PPP.
Mr Ramotar also accused the APNU of racial campaigning in Linden because the partnership won a traditional PNC stronghold, yet he fails to use the same argument to attack his party for winning in their strongholds. The PPP has never won Region 10 and therefore can lay no claim to it, especially after marginalising that community and its residents.
It is known by many that it was Commissioner Vincent Alexander who caught the tallying discrepancy prior to Gecom declaring the results that would have given the PPP a 33 seat parliamentary majority, and this is probably what Mr Ramotar is alluding to. This error after declaration could have only been corrected through a court of law, and until such time the PPP would have held on to a seat that they did not win. It is the view of many that in the light of Mr Alexander’s vigilance in upholding the tallying rules awarding parliamentary seats his job as Registrar at the University of Guyana is now threatened.
In 2006 Gecom made a similar mistake in computing the parliamentary allocation of seats, robbing the AFC of a Region 10 seat, which was squatted on by Mr Samuel Hinds. This matter went to court, took a long time to be called, then the court could not find the document, found it afterwards, and it was finally thrown out on a technicality. In the meanwhile the PPP held on to the seat awaiting the court’s ruling, using a seat it did not earn to impose their will on the people and govern against their interest.
The PPP has a history of accusing others of rigging elections and using race, and the record shows that this party is guilty in both instances. In addition to the cases mentioned above the High Court vitiated the 1997 elections for failing to respect the constitutional right of the voters.
This attitude of the PPP clearly conveys that it thinks that theirs is the right to govern this country and they will call foul when they do not win or will do anything to ensure they govern. This attitude plays out at every mode or level of government, be it on the Regional Democratic Councils, City Councils, or Neighbourhood Democratic Councils. Being elected to govern is a privilege when you serve at the behest and in the interest of others; it is not an entitlement, and the PPP needs to understand the difference.
Yours faithfully,
M A Bacchus
