I concede that Mr. Ramkarran never declined the PPP’s 1997 nomination

Dear Editor,

I read with great interest Ralph Ramkarran’s recent ‘Conversation Tree’ article, headlined ‘I never declined’ published in the Sunday August 7, 2022 edition of Stabroek News. I was compelled to pay attention to what was attributed to me for more than a couple of minutes in order to ponder authorship, authority and authenticity. I am glad that Mr. Ramkarran expressed his views publicly on the matter. By opening the door, he rejected a view held by some that key decisions made by the leadership of the PPP under the Jagans were not arrived at as a result of democratically held lengthy and robust debates.

Mr. Ramkarran’s account also serves as a reminder of the difficulties inherent in the plurality of friends and the qualitative and quantitative problem of friendship and camaraderie. Tangentially, we were reminded of Aristotle’s saying about friendship; ‘O friends, there are no friends.’ Reliance on memorabilia and our individual ‘contemporaneous records’ of particular events, are likely to evoke more than one account of what actually took place. It is in that context, that I welcome Mr. Ramkarran’s viewpoint since it inheres the healthy practice of public education for the sake of clarification with a view to carrying the discussion forward.

Suffice it to say, in the conversation during the Freddie Kissoon-Gildharie Show aired on July 25, 2022, I never did use the verb ‘declined’ in the present nor past tense as the raison d’etre for Mr. Ramkarran’s discontinuation of the selection process for the party’s 1997 presidential candidate. To be more precise, what I did say on the Show was; “Ralph said he was no longer interested.” I have to concede that Mr. Ramkarran never said he was ‘no longer interested’ (was indifferent or unconcerned) nor did he ‘decline’ (refused to accept) the nomination to be the Party’s presidential candidate. Mr. Ramkarran said he did not decline the nomination. That he accepted, but his proposal to deal with his temporary circumstances was rejected.

As can be discerned, in writing I used a different expression than the one used in daily speech or habitual saying. In closing, I am reminded of the views expressed by Mc Luhan and Postman, two 20th century American media theorists who in separate publications wrote: ‘Don’t just look at what’s being expressed. Look at the ways it’s being expressed.(McLuhan). Postman for his part wrote; ‘Don’t just look at the way things are being expressed, look at how the way things are expressed determines what’s actually expressible.’

Sincerely,

Clement J. Rohee