Dear Editor,
I appreciate that Dr Henry Jeffrey found the time to respond to my letter published in both the Guyana Chronicle and Stabroek News (25/10/2019). It was a response to his Future Notes column, captioned, `The WPA: the self-proclaimed apologist for the PNCR!’ (SN: 16.10.2019).
I am a believer in the value of public polemics as an effective way to promote political consciousness and develop the political culture in the country. It is rewarding that on some occasions, these exchanges lead to clarity and throw up interesting political contradictions – very often unintentional.
Jeffrey reminded me and the nation of his public position after the formation of, A New and United Guyana (ANUG), he wrote, “Thus, in a letter in April 2019, I stated that I will stand for no party or government position because for me ANUG is an idea that is bigger than ANUG itself…”. I am doubtful that given the general political culture in Guyana, that Jeffrey’s position is helpful to the electoral fortunes of the ANUG. He is appealing to Guyanese to vote for the ANUG and at the same time, he is abandoning his responsibility to the electorate, by not standing for office. For the sake of the ANUG and more importantly, his noble agenda of shared governance, (which has my support) given its importance to the nation: will it be asking too much of Henry Jeffrey to rethink his position and stand for office. By doing so he would be demonstrating, “…a greater commitment to the idea of shared governance,..” which he rebuked me for not having.
Jeffrey, as expected, reminded me that I have often said that the WPA is powerless in the coalition. And on that score he is correct. But he is wrong to stretch my position to suit his purpose to mean that I am saying that the PNCR “dominates” the coalition, or to use his recent contention, it has become the PNCR. He is also guilty of fabrication erroneously attributed to the WPA when he said, “ …and what the WPA has repeatedly brought to our attention is that the PNCR is the overwhelmingly dominant partner in the coalition, and thus his objection lacks substance. “ This matter of the PNCR, as the “overwhelmingly dominant partner in the coalition” is Jeffrey’s construct, not mine or the WPA. And without fear of contradiction, neither the WPA nor the AFC will agree with his statement. This is not to deny at times the PNCR acts in a manner that undermines itself and the coalition.
For me, WPA’s powerlessness in the coalition which I had referred to in previous writings, has to be seen in the context of demands on the party to exercise power and leverage it didn’t have. The 60/40 relationship between the APNU and AFC and the fact that the cabinet makes and execute decisions, with the WPA having one minister in the cabinet describes our dilemma. I was pointing our detractors to where power resides in the coalition. If we break down the coalition, to its individual parties and seek to ascertain power relations the dominant parties are the PNCR/AFC and not the WPA.
It is hard to understand how Jeffrey’s point that the “coalition is the PNCR” with the AFC having 40% would stand? Except of course in the arena of political propaganda. If that party (PNCR) was all-powerful in the coalition how then an AFC parliamentarian brought down the government?
In response to my contention that the APNU+AFC government’s record on governance is superior to the repressive governance of the PPP/C regime of which he was a member, Jeffrey does not disagree. But he seeks to rationalise the PPP/C repression. He writes, “What I would say is that the present government is not confronted with the direct subversive political machinations the PPP/C had to face and thus has no reason to be similarly suppressive.” It is interesting that he sees in countries like Guyana two options, “suppression or democratic shared governance…”
I am forced to ask Jeffrey if this was his view when he decided to join the PPP/C government? I am not “picking” but honestly trying to understand his politics.
In his effort to sanitize the PPP/C’s repression Jeffrey sounds like a typical PPP/C leader refusing to recognize that their governance practices in major ways have contributed to the subversion he alluded to.
Henry Jeffrey said, “But I cannot believe that he wishes to contest my assertion that the WPA has been electorally inconsequential and remains so today.” There are many facets of electoral relevance for this discourse I will state two aspects: (a) receiving the votes and (b) the influences that contribute to that vote/outcome. I am contending that the WPA‘s relevance since 2011 to the present is rooted in the latter. Yes, Mr Jeffrey, I am contesting your assertion.
I am concluding this polemic having made the point above for good reasons.
Readers would note that in my earlier letter I asked Jeffrey to explain to the nation, given his views of the WPA electoral and political relevance, why he is wasting his time with the party? On this important question, he failed to offer an explanation. I ask once again, why?
Yours faithfully,
Tacuma Ogunseye
