Dear Editor,
Last Friday, April 2 Mr Mervin wrote a letter in SN (‘Will Mr Corbin step down as party leader?’) in which he made statements which I would like to take him up on. He implied that the ‘big tent’ for 2006 was broken up by the PNC and Mr Corbin. I was very involved in the coalition process of the ‘third force’ and we met on a regular basis: the WPA, GAP, ROAR, Unity Party, Peter Ramsaroop’s civil union and the AFC before their launching, and after that, when they declared a presidential candidate even while we were in discussions on that matter. At no time did I see anyone from the PNC at any meeting we had over many months.
Mr Mervin’s contention that the PNC broke up the coalition being put together is a sheer fabrication, and I cannot understand how certain parties who were involved in the efforts in 2006 can sit by and ignore misrepresentations from a known supporter of the AFC. The ideology of ‘big tent’ politics within this third force was still being debated and no conclusion had been arrived at.
But one side against the big tent concept was the AFC, and at the other pole, for the ‘big tent,’ was yours truly; the issue at hand was whether to go for a PNC inclusion to create a big tent or to stay as the third force. On top of that, the AFC had, midway through this social experiment, committed to a presidential candidate, a clear violation of our collective spirit because that was an important issue which had not really been discussed, even though suggestions had been made (eg proper polling).
Editor, the issue at hand concerning the big tent was whether we should turn the third force from a three-way race into a big tent and a straight two-way race in the 2006 general elections. Repeat, the PNC was never involved in these discussions, so how could Mr Mervin insinuate that they were the ones who caused the collapse of the unity agenda? There was never a ‘big tent’ put in place and Mr Mervin should know that quite well. Mr Mervin should know quite well that it was sheer ambition on the part of the AFC which destroyed the fabric of the third force; they should remember that political ambition is a disease which consumes many who claim leadership.
Editor, in my opinion, Mr Mervin is willing to take his bias for AFC positions to the extreme, where he is willing to twist and turn events and factual occurrences into his own conjecture, trying to delude the public with his political trapeze; in his case, the saying, ‘The pen is mightier than the sword,’ does not apply, because for him, the pen is the sword.
Yours faithfully,
Cheddi (Joey) Jagan (Jr)
