I invite readers, both my regulars and casual fans, to decide whether (all) the following is factual, true and an accurate record of a very recent war-room-type strategy meeting by executives of the opposition People’s Progressive Party (PPP), as they planned another round of responses to all the Granger government is doing right and doing wrong as they, the PPP, fights to stay relevant even necessary.
Now pardon that un-journalistic Tommy-Payne-like long sentence alone. But see how much of the following report you find to be credible. In the context of all you hear and see from the defeated PPP these days. And remember that despite the immorality of corruption, alleged racism, pilfering from the Public Purse and abandonment of the people, thousands still want to support this new PPP – their “own”.
************************
Big picture, who’s the leader?
This session was convened on a Saturday at Freedom House. A few of the older comrades left, felt uneasy at a preceding informed briefing held at Bharrat’s Pradoville palace on the Friday evening. Since 2011 one of those veteran comrades had blurted out to Bharrat: “Is you mansion and pension mek we lose de majority!”
So, this Saturday at Freedom House it was quickly decided that the “big picture” was to foster in the young supporters’ minds as well as the business community’s, that the PPP could still be an alternative government and that the economy, crime and race must be projected as thorny issues from the party’s perspectives, clothed both in PPP propaganda and the views of certain credible supporters.
Said a weary Donald Rabindranath Ramotar: “Let Bharrat, Clement and Gail continue to be the lead images of our presence and weekly thrust. My status is waning, Roger is not well and Bharrat continues to be robust – in and out of the country.”
Brief discussion found consensus on that strategy. Then power-house Bharrat dominated the head-table by defining precisely the issues to be tackled. There is/was no question that he is recognized as Leader. Of party. Of strategy. Of PPP in Parliament – and at bottom-house meetings. At this session he directed thus: “One leader is necessary for the life and future of our party.”
*************************
Issues, approaches, being steadfast
Jagdeo then itemized “vital national issues” to be projected – and manipulated – by the PPP. They included sensational crime; lapses at public hospitals countrywide; GECOM; the Venezuela claim and National Assembly pause.
“I will spearhead attacks on the handling of the economy; Clement and Gail, you-all continue (the) barrage on GECOM’s preparations for the LGE and the selfish convening of the Assembly. Robeson and Ashni are behaving suspiciously these days. Perhaps they’ll come to their senses when they have to appeal to Anil for legal protection. Meanwhile Gillian Burton, Dr Vindi and Indra are doing well to create issues regarding women’s rights. Clement and I will keep the pot boiling where race-oriented issues are concerned, were among Bharrat’s initial admonitions.
Ramotar then intervened to point out some challenges, some difficulties in the face of the “new” administration’s successes so far. “We can’t gain any useful traction in attacking their national clean-up and restoration projects. Note how some of our former businessmen supporters are assisting with that – living good with them.”
“And this American Ambassador is outwardly showing his hands by not even approaching us. All we have left is people’s fear of crime. And I suspect America is going to help them in a big way.” Ramotar concluded.
The meeting continued with Czarina Gail suggesting that “our letter-writers must plant letters highlighting such ideas as Granger’s military men being a possible menace; AFC uncertainty in the coalition; prices of pharmaceuticals; poor LGE voter-education; contracts for APNU supporters and diplomatic appointments void of gender and race-equality considerations.” No one mentioned their election petition.
There was quite a lot of speculation about how the issues of sugar, rice bauxite gold and budget consultations should be handled by the party. But as local politics goes, no thought was given to support for good coalition policies or for parliamentary co-operation. Except for caution on the Venezuelan issue, the strategy session was all about “oppose-expose-depose. How sad. Right?
********************
Before and after the split
The 1955 political split of the victorious but “deposed” People’s Progressive Party (PPP) ought to have attracted much more political study and analyses over the decades than it actually did.
It was a case study in pre-Independence political wrangling when the colonial masses were crying out for the continuation of the 1953 unity two leaders had symbolized; Frankly Speaking, for me, it was more Burnham’s greed than the Jagans’ communist ideology that caused that Jaganite/Burnhamite PPP split – a political fissure and chasm which consequences still beset too many of us today. Our students of local political history should spend some time on that development. And Sidney King/Kwayana and Ashton Chase from that era are still holding on amongst us.
Speaking of Chase, Nanda Gopaul relates that he (Chase) introduced young Returnee Burnham to the labour union and campaigned with him when the Jagans embraced him (1950-53). Chase actually deferred to Burnham even as Cheddi preferred Chase to chair the militant popular PPP of ’53. The rest is history. Burnham broke away in 1955. His charismatic brilliance; his political acumen which eventually attracted British/American anti-communist patronage, all catapulted Forbes into the political powerhouse he was to become. What were to be the consequences for poor Guyana? And would you-all agree: That Bharrat copied some of Burnham’s techniques? Discuss…
Ponder well…
.1) Expected! Great of the PNCR to defend its leader’s name and integrity against the 1974 American Diplomatic cable describing him as having the reputation of an “anti-East Indian racist.” But what of (poor) Elvin?
.2) So my friend Hamley was the choice for London. Singh-Bodden for a Canadian Consulate? Another female (for India)? Kirton (W)? China? Brazil? Promote Keith George!
.2b) Could all editors guide their reporters as to the use of the word `curfew’?
.3) This historian–president seems to favour giving names to embed persons in our future. Tread carefully, your Excellency.
.4) Any interim increases for the employed poor this December.
.5) Coming soon: Surah 38? ISIS and World War 3.
’Til next week!
(Comments allanafenty@yahoo.com)
