Dear Editor,
Mr Ogunseye, in his letter of June 22 captioned ‘The PCD and history,’ challenges me to “demonstrate political maturity and integrity by publicly correcting [my] falsification of an important development in this country’s political history.” He predicts that if I fail to do so I will be so damnified that I will be “no different than [my] comrades at Freedom House.”
At the time of preparing my response to Dr Hinds, I was not sure at what point during the PCD’s discussions that the PPP’s offer was made to the WPA – whether at “stalemate” or “collapse” stage. I therefore used a neutral formula – “broke down” – so as not to pinpoint with precision whether the offer was made at the time of a “stalemate” (or breakdown) in the PCD or after the “collapse” (or breakdown) of the talks. I thought “breakdown” could mean either. Clearly, Mr Ogunseye did not agree.
Since Mr Ogunseye’s letter, I have reviewed the ‘Afterword’ of Forbidden Freedom written by Cheddi Jagan in 1994. It confirms the timing of the offer as stated by Mr Ogunseye.
We all now, therefore, clearly agree on the essentials, namely, during the PCD talks the PPP offered the prime ministership to Dr Clive Thomas at the point of a stalemate, rather than a breakdown, in the PCD talks. The gravamen of Mr Ogunseye’s complaint against me appears to be that I was “painting a rosy picture of the PPP [by claiming] that after the PCD talks broke down, the PPP had proposed to the WPA a PPP/WPA alliance to contest the 1992 elections.” He said that “this was a fiction of my imagination.” His conclusion about the objective of my “painting a rosy picture” baffles me somewhat. Even if I had deliberately misled your readers, I don’t see how the timing of the offer had anything to do with my main point which I explain below.
It seems as if Mr Ogunseye interprets my use of the words “broke down” to mean “collapse” as opposed to “deadlock,” his own word.
In my response, the exact moment of the offer was not material to my arguments which contested Dr Hinds’s suggestion that from 1992 and thereafter (and before as well) the PPP rejected all overtures that would have healed ethnic tensions and insecurities, and in fact, by its actions, provoked these problems in Guyana.
I sought to dispute this palpably twisted version of history and to question whether Dr Hinds’s omission of the PPP’s offer to the WPA did not contradict it. Dr Hinds had reviewed the PPP’s history from 1956 to post 1992 and could find no redeeming feature as regards efforts at political/ethnic unity. This was one of two instances I pointed out. The PPP’s proposals for a National Patriotic Front and government based on it, which the WPA opposed on the ground that it had a place for the PNC, was the other. The WPA’s own proposal coming after the PPP’s, a Government of National Unity and Reconstruction, had no role for the PNC. Talk about tongue in cheek!
If, for Mr Ogunseye, it is the timing of the PPP’s offer that is important, and not the fact of it, and that my concession is vital to save me from damnation, I happily concede that it was made at “deadlock” and not at “breakdown” stage. I now hope I do not burn in hell or worse, in Freedom House, as he predicted I would if I did not confess!
I am thankful that Mr Ogunseye confirms that the PPP did offer to have Dr Thomas as its prime ministerial candidate, whatever the timing, and even asked Dr Thomas to join his government after the elections. It confirms the substance of my arguments and leaves the question I posed unanswered. It was this: Why did Dr Hinds in his tirade against the PPP ignore its offer to the WPA through the PCD?
I offer a possible answer – because it would have exposed the fallacy of his arguments. Is it for the same reason that Mr Ogunseye evades my question and seeks to raise the red herring of the timing of the offer?
Yours faithfully,
Ralph Ramkarran
