Dear Editor,
Mr David Hinds is frustrated with the PPP regime. Yet, this is no reason for him to say that this regime has a “limited” legitimacy (‘In a society like ours government conceived in terms of government-strong opposition is a recipe for disaster’ SN, June 6).
He said: “The PPP’s legitimacy is based on its electoral advantage. But because that advantage is ethnically grounded it is by nature a limited legitimacy. To broaden its legitimacy it has to get other ethnic groups to cooperate.” Mr Hinds is very wrong.
The PPP regime has a mandate sanctioned by the electorate during an election conducted under the constitution and election laws. Moreover, the regime received a majority of the votes. The PPP regime, therefore, has an absolute mandate to govern every race and every inch of Guyana. The legitimacy of the PPP regime is embodied by this mandate alone, nothing else.
Now, one may wish to argue that an elected regime acts in discriminatory ways. This is a separate argument and it has nothing to do with an absolute right to govern. To confuse one issue with the other is to mislead the public. Mr Hinds is misleading the public. By calling the PPP regime one with a “limited legitimacy,” Mr Hinds openly reduces Guyana’s republican government from being a regime of, by, and for the people to a “limited” regime of, by, and for selected people. Further, Mr Hinds is de-legitimizing the electoral process, and suggesting that some citizens live in the republic but have no government.
Recently, some citizens have opposed this PPP regime by willfully organizing violence against it and its supporters. These citizens believe that they alone can say who gets a mandate to govern in Guyana. If one examines these citizens’ actions and opinions, one would discover that they (more than anyone else anywhere) behold themselves to have the God-given right to sit in the house of the rising sun.
Yours faithfully,
Rakesh Rampertab
