Dear Editor,
I refer to Mr. Ravi Dev’s letter published in the Sunday, June 27, 2021 edition of the Stabroek News, captioned, “David Hinds contradicts Ogunseye’s account”. This polemic/dialogue began in response to claims by Dev that the WPA was responsible for the collapse of the Third/Centre Force initiative, and that the WPA scuttled 2005 Rodney COI. Dev ended his rebuttal, “As for “polemics”, which Mr. Ogunseye says he practices, I find its “sterility” destroys new ideas. I prefer dialogues.” His position that my polemics are sterile is his opinion which he is entitled to, I am however interested in hearing his argument to support his contention on the destruction of “new ideas.”
To extract himself from the “pit” of his own doing Ravi Dev now invokes Mrs. Patricia Rodney’s statement and Dr. David Hinds’ book, “Ethno-Politics and Power Sharing in Guyana” to prove his contention. He wrote, “…she communicated to the WPA/Roopnaraine during the 25th Anniversary Commemoration of her husband’s assassination that she desired a COI. But when she returned to Atlanta “it was quashed”.” There is no disputation of Mrs. Rodney’s expectations that the COI would take place. To think otherwise is unthinkable. I am not contesting that she told the WPA/Roopnaraine that she wanted the COI. And she must have said the same to the PPPC/Government when she was in Guyana since it was the government and the PPPC that had the power to determine whether or not there will be an inquiry, and when. This power did not reside in Roopnaraine or the WPA. The issue is what took place after Mrs. Rodney’s departure from Guyana.
The PPPC tabled in the parliament a resolution with the word assassination. The PNCR objected to the word assassination. Mrs. Rodney was contacted for her opinion/instructions. Roopnaraine had spoken to her and conveyed the family’s position on the issue to the WPA and the government. And we are told that he subsequently reported this to Dev and company. The issue now is what was said to each party. The WPA executive was told that the family agreed to the removal of the word assassination to facilitate the passing of the resolution – nothing about the family not wanting the COI in 2005 to avoid the PPPC making political mileage in the 2006 elections. Nandlall contended that the government was informed that the family did not want the inquiry, and from Dev, that Roopnaraine told them that the family did not want the COI at that time. I have to decide which of the two versions to accept. I reject both moreso since both Nandlall/Dev claimed that their version was the WPA position. The question as to the accuracy of the Roopnaraine report on the family position is “unresolved”.
However, since Dev did not come straight on why the Third/Center Force collapsed, I maintain my previous position of not accepting what he claimed Roopnaraine told them. My position is further justified by his pretending to have no knowledge of how the WPA operates in terms of decision-making and the limits of individual leaders. This practice was explained to Dev and others by the WPA at the penultimate meeting of the Third Force initiative. In these circumstances, I cannot believe his version of what Roopnaraine said. Dev is playing “games”.
I now turn to his reliance on Dr. Hinds’ book to prove his accusation that the WPA was having secret talks with PNCR. It is important to note that Hinds cited, “ …strong denials by those accused”. His mention of the formation of the One Guyana Platform was after the collapse of the Third/Center Force. This alliance was not for contesting elections but to wage a national struggle for the verification of the voter list. The slogan was “no verification, no elections.” This position represented what the party was committed to and nothing else. The reference to a “flurry of behind-the-scenes negotiation between the PNC and the WPA” over a joint slate etc., was not the official WPA/PNCR discussions/negotiations. There is no doubt that one or two persons from the WPA might have met persons from the PNCR and other parties after the announced date for the 2006 elections. From a WPA executive point of view, these were personal initiatives of members which were permitted and must not be seen as official party engagements: I am not “splitting hairs” since this distinction is important to the WPA in the preservation of our practice, of collective leadership in which the authority of the executive is paramount and not the Co-leadership. This explanation is no comfort for Ravi Dev.
The record will show that there was one WPA/PNCR meeting on the 2006 elections that took place at Congress Place about a week before nomination day. We informed them that the WPA had not discussed its participation in the election and we were committed to the no verification, no election campaign. We also told them that the WPA will be sending a delegation to New York to discuss the elections with our overseas/North American members. And the outcome of that meeting will be important in the party’s final position on contesting the elections. The rest is history. The WPA did not contest the 2006 General and Regional Elections. In closing, I am convinced that the above explanation will be treated by Ravi Dev as “sterility” and the destruction of “new ideas”. The problem with our detractors is they want their narrative of the WPA to go unchallenged. We have the right to speak our truth. If “new ideas” have to be destroyed for the truth to prevail – so, be it.
Sincerely,
Tacuma Ogunseye
