Dear Editor,
I read, with much disappointment, a letter written by Mr. James Mc Allister captioned; “This charge of unbecoming behaviour cannot stand” (07.10.11).
In this letter, the gentleman attempted to justify why he should not be disciplined by the PNCR, the party he represents in the parliament. In the first paragraph of his letter he referred to a SN article by Miranda La Rose published on 7-10-07 where, according to her, he was cited for 11 charges of misconduct by the party. While he did not allude to all the charges of misconduct levelled against him he itemized one, and gave his version of the facts relating to same and requested that the public do the assessment; as for him he thinks he has acted appropriately.
Let me identify the charge restated in his letter and assess his behaviour based on his account of the “facts” he reported, in relation to same.
The charge was that Mc Allister refused to stand for the recital of the party’s pledge and the National pledge; remaining seated while others stood; thus displaying disrespect for the prayer, pledge, and Corbin. “This behaviour the party said was unbecoming of a party member moreso a Member of Parliament and a Party Regional Chairman”.
In his letter, while admitting that the charge is factual, he defended his action (or inaction) by stating in his words, “the prayer and the pledge were being used as cheap political tools to undermine my standing in as chairman of the region and chairman of the meeting. I refused to be a willing participant in a scheme aimed at belittling me.”
Now, in my assessment, it would appear that from the tone of Mc Allister’s letter he has a serious problem with power or his political stature. I therefore question the real intention of Team Alexander. Was this cry about change sincere or was it a baseless internal power struggle? From his own comments it was clear Mc Allister was intent on disrespecting the nation and the people of Guyana by not showing respect for the Golden Arrowhead, all because he felt he would have been belittling himself, by doing this.
This is unthinkable on the part of any national leader, Mc Allister should not have allowed his ego to dominate his brain.
The gentleman claimed that when Corbin arrived at the meeting it had already started, but despite this he agreed to suspend the standing orders to allow Corbin to have the meeting to deal with a specific issue. He claimed that there need not be any formal starting of the meeting. But in my assessment of the issue I would think that because he handed the meeting to Corbin he would have given Corbin the option to decide whether or not he begins with the requisite formality. So a decision not to participate in the formality, was wholly disrespectful and inconceivable, especially since the lower level functionaries and others present participated. As a leader diplomacy would have dictated that you do not openly show that conflict exists among the leadership. Your behaviour many would describe as “childish and immature”. Why did you not intimate to Corbin, who shared the head table with you, that he need not go through the formal procedures since this had already been done. Maybe then you might have had good grounds for questioning whether your behaviour was unbecoming. The point is Corbin is leader and the respect should have been accorded.
In my assessment two phrases used by Mc Allister jumped out at me; “undermine my standing as chairman of the region and chairman of the meeting”; and “scheme aimed at belittling me”. As a comrade I am most ashamed to have read one of my party’s senior politicians talking in such language which demonstrates a selfish intent. From his writings, it seem like self image is so critical to Mc Allister’s existence that he is prepared to sacrifice patriotism, nationhood and respect for party. Mc Allister must know that the country, and the party are bigger than Corbin, whom he was bent on disrespecting by not standing. I think it was unfortunate that he wrote this letter and suggest that he does not, to use the words Alexander used to describe Aubrey Norton, “put his foot in his mouth”.
Based on my assessment Mc Allister’s behaviour was unbecoming, disrespectful and irresponsible.
As regards whether he should be disciplined, I would only state that no organisation can afford to have such a senior functionary get away with such blatant act of indiscipline, it surely will not augur well for that organisation.
Yours faithfully,
Eustace Harlequinn
