Saying that there was an urgent need to end the controversy, former PPP executive member Ralph Ramkarran has called on the government to withdraw the radio and cable licences which were quietly handed out by former President Bharrat Jagdeo in the weeks before he left office.
In a column in today’s Sunday Stabroek, Ramkarran, a former two-term Speaker of the National Assembly also posited that had the government “talked” to the opposition about the 2013 budget there would have been a much more constructive result.
Ramkarran’s statement about the licences will pile further pressure on the PPP/C government which has been bombarded by criticism over the favouring of friends of the administration.
Noting that the controversy about the radio licences was not going away, Ramkarran, a senior counsel, pointed out that there had been a flurry of demonstrations, protests, statements, newspaper advertisements and more without any effective response from the government.
He added that some of the criticisms of the radio licence process has been “egregiously vilifying”.
Ramkarran, who quit the PPP last year in a row over his pointed criticisms of the party in relation to the problem of corruption, said “The reluctance of the government to take on the critics of the licence issue is mystifying when contrasted with its vigorous support for Dr (Bharrat) Jagdeo’s comments on the resurgence of anti-Indian sentiments or the loud and sustained campaign in opposition to the budget cuts
“Admittedly the latter are far more immediate and impactful than the issue of the licences. But the muted defence of Dr Jagdeo, muted despite the Attorney General’s belated claim that the licences have a fair ethnic and geographic spread, is still rather surprising having regard to the daily dose of demonization delivered by the press”.
Arguing that Jagdeo would have mounted a defence had he been in office, Ramkarran noted that the presidential platform was no longer available to him but was accessible to the party which had adopted the radio licences decision and therefore the virtual silence of the party was befuddling.
“Or is it that there is no credible political, as opposed to legal, defence to the manner and timing of the issue and the beneficiaries of the largesse?” Ramkarran asked.
He posited that there is an urgent need to end the controversy “where it is dripping daily poison against Dr Jagdeo and the government”. He also said it was important for the court proceedings which had been launched against the licences to be stopped.
“The outcome would be uncertain and it would give the matter a public life of unendurable longevity. Are Dr Jagdeo and the government prepared for this? Are they prepared to lose the case, a possibility with all court matters? Is it not better politically to cut your losses?” Ramkarran asked.
He said that the issue was hurting both Dr Jagdeo and the party and “with some creative public relations accompanying the withdrawal of the licences, everyone can emerge without suffering any humiliation and with dignity intact. The licences should be withdrawn”.
Budget
As in the case of the licences, Ramkarran, who was with the party for just under 50 years, said that the matter of the budget underlined that the culture of the PPP stands in the way of mature compromise.
He said that every serious person including the PPP leadership was aware that talking to the opposition about the budget would have produced less confrontation even if the budget eventually passed was less than expected. However, he said that no talks took place and the reason was that when the PPP is faced with criticism it closes ranks and shuts out the fresh air.
“It bcomes paralysed into angry inaction. It feels that any talks, much less compromise, would be such a gross and humiliating exposure of weakness that it will crumble, collapse and lose power like it did in the 1960s. No one should underestimate the iron grip of this culture of deep fear on the psyche of the PPP”, Ramkarran asserted.
In recent weeks the government has mounted an aggressive campaign to blame the opposition over the $31B in cuts to the 2013 budget.
