Dear Editor,
There are two recent news items that captured my attention: Mr Nigel Hughes’ call for mass protest and Mr Sharma Solomon’s admittance to the Central Executive of the PNC. I cannot help analyzing how the two developments fit into the day-to-day politics of the nation.
Mr Hughes’ outburst seems to be from frustration. But being a prominent leader of his party he needs to be more careful. Although protest is a legitimate way to draw attention to one’s suffering, grievances or discomfort, I do not think this approach from the AFC is wise, especially given Guyana’s political climate and the negative spin-offs of recent protest.
I think education is needed more than anything else in the far regions of the country. In the absence of people getting access to the newspapers the AFC is better advised to go out there and educate the people about the workings of governance that may be affecting them. In other words, let the people themselves decide if protests are necessary. Politicians should be working on having informed voters come election time.
The recent move by Mr Solomon is an indication that his wings are effectively clipped. I fear that whatever positives he had brought to the cause of the people of Linden would be in even more jeopardy. I preferred the no-party stance that he held previously. Even though his successes were not that obvious, in time I feel he would have been victorious fighting as an independent son of Linden. It was just a matter of time before the rewards rolled in.
The political ramification of what just happened is that from now onward whenever he demands something it will be tainted with party affiliation and not in the interest of the people of Linden. That leaves me wondering why he would make that move. Why would he identify himself as a political activist in a fight for political turf, which is dominating the negatives in the region?
I think it is an indication of his inexperience and the PNC’s political smarts in nullifying an impressive up and coming leader, who had the potential to hurt their image if he had stepped under a different umbrella, say, for instance, the AFC. I know he was forced into this position, especially since the party refused to step by his side in the heat of the protest a year ago. He was called names for going it alone. He should have held his ground.
Putting the interest of Guyana first and foremost, I find difficulty understanding the efforts of the PNC, especially since their ability of ever outright winning an election was severely stymied years ago with their ill-advised strategy of disbanding the Reform component of the party and never giving Mr Murray a chance at leadership. So my question is, what’s the glamour of forever being number two?
The AFC is the only party that is not tried and tested in governance. For this reason they are the most feared party from the point of view of the PPP/C. The party’s only defence is to see if they can tie the AFC philosophically to the PNC. If they can do that they will be successful. So, given that the PNC is not in contention and again, in the interest of Guyana, first and foremost, why is it the party does not back off from the power struggle and give their members a chance to pursue other alternatives?
Yours faithfully,
F Skinner
