Dear Editor,
I refer to the news item in your Sunday edition titled: “Ramkarran disappointed, cites lobby against him.” In a section of that item, Mr. Ramkarran is quoted as saying; “I have never conceived that if I would be called upon to serve my country in the most minor of capacities, I would refuse.” I interpret that statement to mean that Mr. Ramkarran was willing to serve the PPP Government since 1992. This is not what I have been told by some of the most important actors in the PPP leadership since 1999. And I mean “the most important actors.” I have been told that the grave weakness of Mr. Ramkarran that killed his chances years ago of ever gaining the party’s nod for its presidential slot was his disinclination to sit in the cabinet since 1992 even though there has been a standing offer since that year.
To date, Mr. Ramkarran remains the only senior party functionary that has not served his party in government. Your reporter should have asked him why he has not been in the cabinet. Surely, it is impossible, I repeat, impossible for any PPP Government to bypass Mr. Ramkarran. It was unthinkable that after the elections in 1992, 1997 and 2000 Mr. Ramkarran would not have been given a slot in the cabinet. My understanding from speaking to party insiders was that Mr. Ramkarran was the automatic choice of a certain influential group within the hierarchy for the presidential candidate in the 1997 election. Mr. Moses Nagamootoo opposed him on the argument that he should not be granted such a high privilege when he chose not to serve the party in government. This is a story about Mr. Ramkarran that has wide circulation. It is so well known that your reporter should have automatically asked the question.
Our reporters must do background checks when they are interviewing eminent Guyanese personalities. This is the way it is done abroad. Once a journalist is slated to interview a well known citizen, he/she immediately sets off to do the relevant research. I think this is standard procedure in journalism. Father Morrison practiced this type of approach when he ran the Catholic Standard. Many times he would call me to ask what I knew of this or that person that he was scheduled to meet. One journalist was quite dedicated to her profession. She sought my knowledge of the activities of the Working People’s Alliance when she was interested in chatting with Dr. Hinds. I have interacted with several of your reporters over the years and would be quite willing to help them with their research when they have interview assignments with political actors of long standing in the Guyanese society.
The 1997 clash between Mr. Ramkarran and Mr. Moses Nagamootoo is public knowledge so Mr. Ramkarran’s response to it should have been solicited. Not much secrecy is maintained by the leadership of the major parties in this country because details are always leaked to the media. I do know that there was intense lobbying against him. Two delegates that are known to me personally were advised not to vote for Mr. Ramkarran by a very senior party functionary.
This was on Saturday morning. They were told that Mr. Ramkarran is only interested in being President and not a cabinet minister. It never occurred to me to ask them how they voted when they told me this last week. I contacted them Sunday morning (August 10) to inquire how they voted and they did not cast their ballots for Mr. Ramkarran. I telephoned a member of the new central committee that I have a good relation with and he told me that he honestly could not have voted for Mr. Ramkarran because of his refusal to take a cabinet appointment. He and I disagreed on the tampering of votes for Mr. Ramkarran. As we continue to talk, given my relationship with him, I am beginning to rethink my belief that the votes for Mr. Ramkarran were rearranged. From talking to certain people in the PPP that I trust, it does not appear that Mr. Ramkarran was a popular option for 2011. When I wrote my letter to the Stabroek (August 10), I was not in possession of information that I received on Sunday morning about the delegates’ attitude to Mr. Ramkarran.
I have been reliably informed that the refusal controversy will continue to shadow Mr. Ramkarran because all, and my friend stressed “all” the major policy-makers in the PPP hierarchy have held the ministerial refusal against Mr. Ramkarran. From talking to key figures in the PPP, it appears that among the Guyanese people, Mr. Ramkarran is one of the popular choices for 2011 but he has not got that support among the PPP hierarchy. I think this is a plausible analysis.
Yours faithfully,
Frederick Kissoon
