Dear Editor,
Please allow me space in your esteemed newspaper to reply to your editorial `The President and criticism’, in the Online edition of your newspaper on August 7, 2022.
If I did not know better I would think your editorial came directly from Congress Place.
I agree that President Ali must listen to his detractors. However, neither SN, other media outlets, nor the opposition gets to decide whether the President “…would have had more taxing problems weighing on his mind.” Is there a specific issue that the President has not addressed in his many speeches and his openness with the media? Unlike past Presidents, Dr. Ali engages the press on a wide array of issues. He has not dodged any reputable media outlets. When he is not out addressing these issues, his government, through his ministers and his very capable VP, has addressed them. Some, as is in any democracy, may not like his or his government’s answers and explanations but then the onus is on them to bring the facts. Let us have an informed debate on the issue.
President Ali said that he will deal with “facts and the truth.” In his speeches he has said that those who have information about his government not being “inclusive” should bring that information to him. I would go one step further and suggest that they take their evidence to the media. Surely our media houses have qualified investigative journalists who can expose instances of non-inclusivity. Why should the President not challenge his critics? He did not “…crush it in a vise-like grip.” He addressed the issues head on with empirical evidence. He has a duty to not allow misinformation to fester in our society but to correct them.
In a fragile society like ours, ripe with mischief makers, facts surrounding inclusivity in governance is probably the most important issue. The opposition has based their entire political strategy, in my view, on this one issue. Our recent history is replete with examples of lies being used to further political goals which invariable ends with one section of our society being subjected to physical violence. You don’t have to look too far back to find an example. This is a headline from SN on June 29, 2022- `Mon Repos vendors beaten, looted during Quindon Bacchus protest.’ Misinformation caused a section of our society to come under physical attack. The accusations of the PPP government not being inclusive, without any evidence to support that claim, only serves to sow divisions in our society hoping to further narrow political interests. Threats of violence in Guyana should concern all of us but it is not restricted to Guyana. It is being exported beyond Guyana’s borders. A so called activist and his cronies in New York threatened to “shut down Richmond Hills businesses” because they are perceived to be PPP supporters. The threat was taken so seriously that over three hundred residents signed a petition calling on the Mayor’s office and the local police precincts to protect the residents and their businesses. President Ali must climb to the tops of mountains to call out the lies for what they are.
Secondly, you went on to suggest that the President should address the “Very informed activists.” A very learned man once told me that just because someone has a megaphone does not make them an expert. Who are these “very informed activists” you speak of? What are their credentials on the subject to give advice? I can only assume that you are referring to the discussion on renegotiation of the oil contract. The President and VP Jagdeo have painstakingly on numerous times explained why they have not chosen that route. Instead, they are focusing on future contracts with the oil companies. Are there independent bodies that can speak to inclusivity in Guyana and if the Government has failed in working towards a “One Guyana.” Who are these experts? I would like to hear from them.
You write that the President with regards to Congressman Hakeem Jeffries should not be “lecturing a foreign national about declining to meet him on that national’s home turf.” I hope that you would agree with me that the President was interested in dialogue and if the Congressman had legitimate concerns he should have presented them on his “home turf.” The Congressman unceremoniously declined to do so. Only a letter from a known PNC activist was sent to SN to make excuses for the Congressman’s nonattendance. Incidentally, it is the same individual who appears to be the architect of the Congressman’s perception of Guyana.
Several months before President Ali and his delegation arrived in Washington DC, members of the Guyanese community, resident in New York, made several attempts to engage Congressman Jeffries. In fact, the International Center For Democracy (ICD) sent a petition, signed by over five hundred New Yorkers, offering to meet with Congressman Jeffries on his “home turf” in New York to discuss his perceptions of Guyana and sent him evidence to the contrary. He never took up the offer. He, nor his office even had the decency to acknowledge receipt of the petition.
Editor, the President is dealing with serious issues – inclusivity being one of them. Those who believe that the President’s words and policies are not inclusive must bring the evidence. Otherwise, they are just making noise with mischievous objectives.
Sincerely,
Sherlock Depoo
