Dear Editor,
In Arthur Schlesinger words, “a great injustice was done to Cheddi Jagan.” From my reading on our nation’s history, this injustice included destroying a popularly elected government (with an electoral shenanigan called proportional representation in 1964), undermining democratic electoral procedures (with the misuse of the overseas and postal votes in 1968 and beyond), and inciting racial strife to steal power from Dr Jagan in the 1962-1964 period. I open with this position in response to a letter from former Minister Henry Jeffrey in the SN of August 13, since it is clear he has chosen to forget significant segments of our nation’s historical facts.
It was with grave disappointment that any independent thinker will read sections of this letter by Dr Jeffrey since it alluded to “Burnham’s tenacious handling” of coalitions. He used the words of Dr Reid to highlight his point about Burnham being “clear-sighted and steadfast” at coalition. What are the objectives of Dr Jeffrey’s letter? When one takes the time to research and draft such a letter, then one has clear intentions. One can easily sense Dr Jeffrey’s anxiety at the AFC’s position on a coalition with the PNC and the PPP. Why should this cause anxiety to a former PNC and PPP czar like Dr Jeffrey? Is he worried that the PNC is at the gates of obliteration? Is he worried that the PPP will not have its greatest asset (the PNC) to win elections from 2011 onwards?
What Dr Jeffrey is attempting to achieve by way of this letter has been done before with severe adverse consequences for the Guyanese nation. So why should the voters even consider his advocacy when it is aimed at repeating history in a manner that will further perpetuate our self-destruction as a nation. The facts are Burnham never believed in any coalition in any form unless it served his and only his exclusive purposes. In 1964, he was “steadfast and clear sighted” in his opportunism to position himself to the US Ambassador, Mr Carlson, to twist arms at setting up a PNC/UF coalition. The facts are that the PNC and UF had very few attributes in common, save and except that they were anti-Jagan parties. By 1968, however, when Burnham arranged for the increase in proxy votes, and for the provision of false voter registration cards for overseas-based Guyanese including the two horses found in Manchester, UK called Lilly and Olga Barton, he has no use for the UF any more as a coalition partner. Ambassador Carlson was so disappointed with the deceptive behaviour of Burnham and his treatment of Peter D’Aguiar in 1967 that he subsequently labelled Burnham a “racist who remembers slights and repays them” (quoted from memorandum by Gordon Chase of the conversation between Carlson and Bundy).
Thus Dr Jeffrey’s utterance can be seen as the kind of advocacy by the old but yet powerful political forces in Guyana to carry on the status quo – a PPP government/PNC main opposition party, or a coalition in some form of the two. Thus the voting public must understand the genesis of the pressure being brought to bear on Raphael Trotman singularly to break up the AFC. I encourage Mr Trotman to read a book called U.S. Intervention in British Guiana by Stephen Rabe, if he has not already done so, to get a better understanding of the evidence of how the PNC operates in preserving this PNC/PPP status quo. The last time this status quo was really threatened was when Dr Rodney was doing his political groundings with the people and what happened to him? The AFC is now clearly threatening this status quo. The writing is on the wall, so all the elephants in the political room are lining up their firepower against the AFC.
Some interesting arguments were raised by Dr Jeffrey. On the question of a unitary people partnership of opposition forces, he stated this is necessary to capture government. However, Dr Jeffrey was too naïve to not explain where will you put the elephant in the room – the PNC? If he is suggesting the PNC is a valuable member of such a partnership, then he has failed to address the fears of a significant percentage of our people – fear of the PNC and its methodology of governance. Why blame the AFC for correctly reading the grassroots’ point of view and strategizing accordingly? There is no tangible evidence that the PNC has made the paradigm shift to allay that fear by a significant chunk of Guyanese voters. With this fear solidly in place, no coalition with the PNC in the mix in a leading role, can ever win 51% of the electorate, so although more than 51% of the people are peeved at the way the Jagdeo regime is managing their affairs, once the PNC is in the picture, some of that majority will subject themselves to “salt and rice” rather than a PNC-led government. The PNC has hard choices to make – face the nation and repent publicly for its past actions such as the rigging of elections, or stay away from the 2011 elections since the writing is on the wall, any coalition with the PNC in it will lose the elections hands down.
On his second point, no one would want to disagree with Dr Jeffrey that ethnic voting is a tool of politics in Guyana, but what he has failed to address is who practises this covert racial bias. What he has also failed to address is the opportunity for the AFC to fire up the youth voters come 2011 who are not inclined to vote race. Many youths stayed away from the PNC and PPP in 2006 and these youths are the scope of the opportunity to dilute our racial voting patterns of the past. If the AFC can only motivate these youths to register, then come 2011, the AFC will double its votes and more since the AFC track record is distinctly superior to the old political forces. So why would the AFC want to submit itself as the concubine of a dying political force?
I am firm in my conviction that organizations like the WPA, with surgical precision will be chewed up and spat out by the PNC as they outlive their usefulness, since there are only so many seats a PNC-led coalition can win at free and fair elections, and there are not enough to share out to political minnows. I personally believe that Dr Clive Thomas and the WPA are engaging in adventurism by joining up with a PNC-led coalition. The WPA came from that rich history of being led by one of the best African Guyanese leaders the world has ever known – Dr Walter Rodney. It was a party that never focused on race for its support but on class issues. Thus, the foundation of the WPA is very different from that of the PNC.
The PNC has a rich history of rigged elections and the practice of racial bias, and is the author of a constitution that was just plain anti-freedom. How can a freedom fighter like Dr Clive Thomas with a rich track record of struggle for the freedom of Guyana in this day and age reconcile his philosophy with that of a Robert Corbin?
So the question on the table is, what is the exclusive use of the WPA at this point in time to the PNC? Intellectual credibility and nothing else, since the WPA does not have any constituency to even secure a ‘phira’ in the National Assembly.
If they stay in the PNC-led coalition, then the time will come when history will repeat itself and the PNC will drop them like hot potatoes.
The PNC is using the WPA for the sole purpose of trying to regain their lost flock so that they can engage in effective political bargaining with the PPP for positions in the post-2011 Government of Guyana, and this may not be a bad thing, but why endeavour to consume the best thing that has happened to Guyana since Dr Rodney – the AFC?
As these events unfold, with the pressure increasing on the AFC to join the PNC-led coalition, I just keep remembering the three American administrations which sacrificed their ideals (freedom) and values (democracy) to keep communism out of Guyana in the 1960s. Will the AFC sacrifice its ideals and values for power under a PNC-led coalition? Very unlikely and the Guyanese people will understand and reward the AFC for being politically mature and different from the old politics of race voting. I rest my case.
Yours faithfully,
Sasenarine Singh
