Dear Editor,
With each passing day, the PPP leaders tell us how democratic they are and how unchanging is the PNC leadership. If one does not write to expose these crude propaganda displays, young minds may be led astray. It was never announced to the media by PPP spokespersons that Dr. Frank Anthony was chairman of the congress’s credential committee. This committee determines who gets to the congress and who votes. Basic commonsense and basic morality should have informed Dr Frank Anthony that he could not have been the head of the credential committee since he was fighting for the votes of the very people whose status he had to determine. The PNC was more democratic in this respect. Mr Alan Munroe was the credential committee boss when that party held its congress. But he couldn’t be accused of a conflict of interest because he was not a contestant.
Clouds will gather on the showing of Dr Anthony. Out of nowhere, he placed third. Leave out the President and Mrs. Jagan. Dr Anthony without any large public image over the years, without being a household name, without any magnificent achievement in his career is the most liked PPP leader; that is if you leave out the President who is the President so his standing is understandable and Mrs. Jagan. Now even if this is so, the conflict of interest vortex will cause people to question Anthony’s third place. The PPP should now explain who were on the credential committee.
Why did the credential committee want the delegates six weeks before the voting to fill in a form that offers very confidential information? Why did delegates have to state private information on their families? Can Dr Anthony explain if the other 87 competitors for the 40 seat central committee were given access to those forms? If not then that is unfair. It meant that contestants who controlled the credential committee had the advantage of making contacts with delegates to lobby them. One UG lecturer told me his group selected him as a delegate but on the day of voting he was told that it was withdrawn. Several persons have applied to the party leadership to request an inquiry at the withdrawal of their voting rights. Mrs Ralph Ramkarran did not have delegate status at this congress which was a break from the tradition.
The returning officer was Nirmal Rekha, the highest ranking public servant at the Ministry of Finance. Can you imagine in the American, British or Caribbean mode of governance, such a highly placed public servant being intimately involved in the congress of a political party? This could never happen in the American system yet if you pick up your copy of the Mirror newspaper today perhaps you will find Mrs Jagan telling us of the false democracy of the United States. I find that the trouble with leaders who criticize American democracy is that they are even worse than the US leaders they love to hate.
The low placement of Mr Ramkarran at the congress gave the whole thing away. I believe Ramkarran’s votes were tampered with because a few manipulators believed that the next day (the voting was Saturday evening and the credential committee had control of the votes for the entire Saturday night and Sunday morning) there would have been a spontaneous motion from the floor to endorse him as the presidential candidate. Mr Ramkarran made a mistake when he appeared in his speech to have opposed Moses Nagamootoo for condemning Mugabe as a dictator and for choosing Barack Obama as US President. Mr Ramkarran’s timing was bad.
This was before the voting and also Nagamootoo’s contribution was warmly welcomed by the entire floor. This faux pas by Mr Ramkarran may have caused him to lose votes but he definitely could not have placed 22 on the list for the central committee. This could not have been. It is just not possible when you look at the names that were chosen above Mr Ramkarran. The PPP and the PNC never had a free congressional voting without some element of rigging. That is the nature of both parties.
Yours faithfully,
Frederick Kissoon
