Dear Editor,
In an article in the Stabroek News dated Friday, December 30, 2011 and captioned ‘Granger says Nagamootoo not the best person for Speaker,’ Mr Granger stated his reason for not wanting Moses. He added a second name to his initial proposal of Debra Backer, namely, that of Cammie Ramsaroop.
I found this exceptionally interesting especially when I read on and found the reason for Mr Granger’s position. While he accepted that Moses would not be a polarizing figure he had a problem because according to him Moses was a member of the PPP”s central committee and a member of parliament when some of the abuses of the PPP/C administration were being committed.
Moses came out in criticism of the PPP, left the PPP and was the main instrument in removing the majority from the PPP and in creating a hung parliament that allows us to have this discussion in the first place. But this is a point that has no merit in the mind of Mr Granger and I guess the PNC section of the APNU which constitutes the dominant voice.
I wonder what the views of Rupert Roopnaraine are and those of members of the other groups associated with the PNC. So Moses was associated with the abuse of the PPP/C government but if I can recall at one time Rupert was close to the PPP/C government. Maybe he is a bit tainted too, but leaving this aside what about those who were associated with the atrocities of the PNC government. Are they tainted with its atrocities?
Let’s start with the fact that Rupert had no problems with the party that assassinated his leader and friend Dr Walter Rodney. He was and is willing to accept the PNC candidate David Granger as his presidential candidate. Rupert is an intellectual and I am sure he would agree that Granger’s reasoning could apply to Granger himself also, as he was with the PNC when it was committing its abuses, when the army was seizing ballot boxes, when the army shot the ‘Ballot Box Martyrs‘ in Berbice, and when there was wholesale rigging of the general elections by the PNC.
Here we have the rejection of Moses because of “being tainted,” and rather than sticking to Ms Backer as the AFC does not have a problem with the person per se but which party should hold the Speaker’s position, Mr Granger proposes Mr Ramsaroop, who was there throughout the Burnham dictatorship with all its concomitant abuses and atrocities. But he is not tainted because Mr Granger is either in denial with regard to the abuses of the PNC or finds those abuses perfectly acceptable.
On the other hand, we have Moses who fought against the atrocities of the Burnham and Hoyte dictatorships, opposed the wrongs of the PPP and eventually left to fight the PPP because it had changed and became oppressive.
Recently Mr Granger came up with yet another statement, that Moses was promised a reward. What else Mr Granger? I guess those who joined with the PNC were not promised anything. Did Rupert not want the prime ministerial position, but leaving that aside there seems to be a sudden change which is being voiced by Rupert who has come out in support of the rotation theme that finds Moses acceptable to the APNU. Rotation seemingly washed Mr Granger’s perception of Moses as tainted away.
But it seems that rotation came with flotation as APNU floated the idea that APNU must get the first go at the position. This has actually pulled the mask from the face of APNU and revealed the character of the PNC which like the PPP does not intend to change but believes that they both individually and sometimes collectively own the Guyanese people.
This hung parliament can be the beginning of a new era, but then again it may not be, as we find the likely leader of the opposition behaving as if he is the all powerful one because “so many people voted against the PPP and so voted for change.” Yes, they voted against the PPP but then they voted for another colour of it. They voted for exchange but the PPP remains the majority and APNU the minority which with the help of the AFC could bring forth a new dispensation.
It was the AFC that did this as the PNC could not have done so, and for that matter, no other party ever did so over the decades.
The APNU seems hell bent on behaving as the past PNC and so it could defeat the possibilities and the potential I mentioned. Hopefully its partners can intervene to bring about some political sanity within the movement.
This letter is not intended to root for Mr Nagamootoo. I am writing because of the nonsensical statements from Mr Granger and then Rupert with a camouflaged version of APNU must have the Speaker, the Leader of the Opposition, the Chairman of the Finance Committee, etc. I am writing because of his flawed reasoning. And I state here that if Moses is tainted then so is Mr Granger. In a way I am defending myself also, as what applies to Moses could very well apply to me utilizing Mr Granger’s logic.
Mr Granger needs to get on with the task of working with the AFC to fulfil the promises made to the people by both parties. There is a need to launch investigations into corruption. There is a need to assure that they will give the President all the support he requires or force him to fulfil his promise to root out corruption, which by his own admission has become deep rooted in the PPP. But while we do this we must place the voice of change in the Speaker’s chair.
Before I close I need to remove the red herring of ‘placing a woman‘ there. The fact that they selected a male prime ministerial candidate and the fact that Mr Granger very quickly proposed a male alternative although Ms Backer the person was never attacked, is proof of the red herring.
Also I close with the words of Jinnah Rahman: “It is now left to Moses Nagamootoo to carry on the fight and reclaim the original values of the PPP and Dr Jagan. Few would doubt Nagamootoo’s loyalty to the nation and his reputation to unite our people – as One People One Nation One Destiny. The days and months ahead will be exciting for those who are on the side of decency and a prosperous Guyana.”
Could Jinnah please remind Mr Granger and Rupert about this endorsement?
Yours faithfully,
Rajendra Bisessar
