As the PPP/C busies itself with the celebration of its two decades in power and congratulates itself on fulfilling 80% of its 1992 manifesto promises, if the results of the last general elections did not, certainly the happenings in Linden and Agricola, which were the result of the despair of many and brought inconvenience to not a few, must be a timely reminder that it has not succeeded in dealing with the ethnic insecurity that is one of the most pressing issues in Guyana recognised in the party’s 1992 manifesto.
As a matter of fact, I have suggested in this column (“The political manifesto:” SN: 21/09/2011) that it is merely self-serving to speak of having fulfilled any percentage of a manifesto without stating precisely what is involved in such a statement. As examples: firstly, there is the qualitative issue of what having implemented means. Secondly, there are, so to speak, the numerical issues: shall we take this claim to mean that the PPP/C has fulfilled 80% of the number of promises it made and if so, is it the more important pledges contained in the 80% that were fulfilled or in the 20% that were not? Let us consider two issues contained in the 1992 manifesto to give examples of both of these observations and their interrelationship.
If in 2012 we understand the ethnic issue to be one of the most pressing concerns of Guyanese life, in 1992 the PPP/C did not think so. It argued that: “The racial/ethnic issue is today not a
