With great respect, I have read Dr. Henry Jeffrey’s very articulate response in SN of July 5, 2018 to what apparently was conceived to be my personal reaction to his earlier letter on the subject of the structure of the management of the Guyana Elections Commission.
It is just possible that I may have been misinterpreted as having a disagreement with his erudite perspective on the issue. Quite the contrary. The point being made was that his commentary had opened the opportunity to bring attention to wider discussion, albeit of a substantive recommendation of the Carter Center Observer Team, invited as they were to comment on the aspects and implications of the 2006 Elections.
It is by no means an argument between the two correspondents. More importantly however, what emerges is the well recorded fact that the principal actors (and possibly their advisors) in the Commission deliberately avoided discussion of the pros and cons of the specific recommendation even when it was part of the agenda.
So that we do not have the benefit of other views – either at the Party level, or for that matter, the rest of our citizenship.
There was simply nothing to lose in exposing this debate, since in any case there could never have been any conclusive view.
One basic tenet is that related information in such circumstances should be shared. There still remains the question to be asked, and continually debated, as to how much are we benefitting from institutionalised divisiveness?
What could be wrong about exploring options?