During May-June last year they solemnly and spitefully promised to deliver what we – meaning all those not with them – seem to be receiving: A cheated-not-defeated/oppose-expose-depose parliamentary and political opposition.
Even when Nicolas Maduro’s claim to and half hour violation of our Motherland’s space happened, Mr Jagdeo uttered statements of appeasement. So the People’s Progressive Party, with its substantial parliamentary presence and a mighty greedy heartache of being out of government and authority, will find nothing of merit with the Granger-led government. Even if the APNU+AFC efforts will bring obvious, practical, lasting benefits to its own PPP supporters – – even those seemingly mindless, impressionable and/or faithful to their fault.
How then should a fledgling Administration, a Governing Party, Civil Society and even apolitical stakeholders respond to, treat with such an avowed, non-conformist political group? A group whose only objective is to regain superior space in the Corridors of Power?
Democracy, debate – but deference?
By January 2016, as still a patriotic citizen, I must accommodate basic facts and principles extant in our Republic: like we voluntarily inherited and retained a British Parliamentary system (now somewhat refashioned to our national characteristics); that democracy and its norms are our preferred choice of governance; that an elected and credible opposition should be the main monitor of how any government manages national business and resources. Of course, today’s Opposition realizes their right to share political and parliamentary space. Even as the government is allowed to govern – according to time-worn principles and procedures.
But how the Opposition utilizes their constitutional right is another matter. And how seriously, within the above-mentioned contexts, should the current PPP Opposition be taken? Should their reasonable demands be met? Should their outrageous, divisive statements and actions attract substantial responses? Firm repulses?
The Opposition deserves debates the democracy affords them, sure. However too much deference to them, when courtesies are rebuffed and manipulated, should not be extended. Frankly Speaking, the PPP wishes failure upon this government even if it means that “their own” will share collective suffering. Guyana’s present, its future (read history-in-the-making) must not accommodate that brand of politicking. Examine the Freedom House approaches in various national situations, against its bold-face legacy of mis-management, discrimination, corruption and thievery. Billions wasted, Guyana’s “Cocaine Status” and underground economy do not make these comrades guilty or shy. Instead, they pounce on government’s rookie mis-steps, blunders and a few imprudent decisions to suggest they were or are still “better”.
Responding, dealing with them
First, citizens should analyse whether the PPP has any moral status to criticize any position now on say crime, medical care, rice, sugar, bauxite, the public service, trade or the police force – for example. (Foreign impact, the international environment apart, their mal-administration has caused severe under-development – from local government to cultural vibrancy!)
I understand that it is necessary to respond to Comrade Rohee’s utterances because too many people
are gullible and need to know the truth; to be reminded or be educated about facts and implications.
But do the thousands who voted for Bharrat Jagdeo really care about that? I share again my view. And an articulation from the Stabroek I also share.
I state again: it is the “new morality” that blurs the line between right and wrong; that makes heroes and role-models out of crooks and crooked politicians and failed leaders. Add to that “morality” the elements of race, even religion and “business discrimination” and you understand why Bharrat Jagdeo attracted thousands of (young) votes to the preservation of the PPP clan.
I’m also attracted to how an SN editorial writer argues: “Certainly, the electorate of any political persuasion would not concede the right of the members of any party to help themselves to public funds but unfortunately what happens is that polarisation is so entrenched that the need to vote for the favoured party tends to override any moral outrage over corruption by anyone, in that same party”.
So how to treat with the PPP people of our political world? Ignore outright sometimes; listen to the electorate and other young (er) citizens; listen to, act upon the findings of the credible, professional auditors; illustrate the consequences of the dismal mismanagement of the Rohees as a government and go into traditional PPP constituencies and invite them to join with today’s government to improve their quality of life. Let’s see how the PPP grassroots will refuse offers of government guidance and self-reliance. Which brings me to Local Government elections.
Voting to manage ourselves
(I’ll probably disappoint with this brevity as this issue should be very more substantial.) So till next time let me ask: is GECOM, during its country-wide consultations, explaining why the electoral architects came up with a dual system for the March local elections?
I feel I know why but this aspect should be “pounded in” right now to the electorate. For me the local communities should be in the fore-front of electoral representation. But not in our Guyana! The PPP will use the LGE as a “referendum’. They already control the larger regions housing the smaller units and councils to be rejuvenated. The President has already laid out a case for his APNU, AFC, PNC to contest. So how local will the “communities” be in management?
The GECOM – and the Communities Ministry – must detail just how the elected representatives of NDCs in New River, New Amsterdam, Enmore, Enfield, Aishalton and Adelphi will receive central benefits to supplement their own community resources.
Yes, I regard these ground-breaking local management polls as vital as last May’s decisions. So look for my take on most Fridays from today.
For your consideration…
*1) Think about this: Guyanese Harrilall plants rice in Suriname. Venezuela will purchase that rice, but not Guyana’s own. (Harri still “wins”!)
*2) Bharrat’s sugar from Guyana is under threat from a Western World determined to reduce drastically the use of that product. Benjie’s “sugar” – his diabetes, is one global reason for sugar’s coming demise.
*3) Hold Dr Clive Thomas to his anti-corruption commitments.
*4) How is my favourite veteran Director of Culture getting along? Collaborating with the new younger cultural czar?
*5) Which is to be revealed first? The January National Budget? Or the code for ministers?
‘Til next week!
