Dear Editor,
Considering my role in the previous two national elections, my present employment and pronouncements I’ve made recently in the letter columns and on social media, I think that people might be confused about where I stand politically. The short version is that I stand for the country – I know that it may be a quaint idea, but I have a concept of this place that places a premium on our particular historical experience as critical for our own survival and the rest of the world at this juncture in history. That is the abstraction.
Within the current situation, considering all the present options, and all the various factors, I think that David Granger is the best possible President for this current time. However, I believe that the present political infrastructure has failed and it is time for a new way of doing things, a transformation that necessitates curbing the powers of the presidency and placing greater emphasis on negotiation, consensus, integrity and statecraft.
In the short term, that means disincentivizing unilateralism, and the only way that is currently possible is via a minority Granger-led administration under the present constitution, with a credible parliamentary arbiter premising legislative cooperation on immediate shared governance as a sign of good faith, time-bound constitutional reform, and a transformative development agenda worthy of our people and their resources.
Even as I give equal value to supporters of the PPP and I respect their right to choose their leadership, I do not believe that the current leadership infrastructure is worthy or capable of the Guyana as I envision it. I have no intrinsic prejudicial concept of the PPP, and I enjoy an occasional cordial and honest engagement with a few in its leadership, but I have the experience of having lived under the party, the Jagdeo presidency in particular, almost all of my adult life and I’ve seen the unapologetic racism, the barbarism, the disrespect for the rule of law, the suppression of dissent up close. I’ve been a victim of it, driven to poverty and denied opportunity because I chose to speak out.
Still, the lesser of two evils argument is not good enough. It is an insult to my individual intelligence and the very basis of our continued ethnic division. At the end of the day, no matter how dysfunctional our political leadership becomes, each side of the divide is offered the false choice “We may be bad, but at least we look just like you.” Meanwhile, the majority of our people continue to suffer in common while the majority of our politicians continue to prosper in common. This cannot continue, cannot be accepted as the reality we have to deal with. This was not a viable option in 2015, and it cannot be a viable option at the eve of oil wealth because all that will happen is that our politicians will continue to prosper in common and the bulk of our people will continue to suffer in common.
There is therefore no need to speculate on my political position.
Yours faithfully,
Ruel Johnson
