Since the public invitation by Prime Minister Moses Nagamootoo to the PPP for talks leading to a government of national unity, varying opinions have been expressed by several commentators on the issue, including Henry Jeffrey (SN 2015-09-16), Tacuma Ogunsaye (KN 2015-09-19) and Anil Nandlall (SN-09-19). Jeffrey called for clarity of intention from the coalition, Ogunsaye expressed the view that the PPP believes it will win the next elections and that Jagdeo sees himself as president for those reason will not agree to a national unity government. Nandlall called for a ‘peaceful atmosphere’ to be first established before any talks can take place.
There were times in the history of the PPP when the national interest took precedence. In August 1975 the PPP offered ‘critical support’ to the PNC government. At that time the PPP perceived that government was moving in an ‘anti-imperialist’ direction. It had embarked on a policy of nationalization of foreign owned industries and was perceived to come or likely to come under attack by ‘imperialism.’ In these circumstances the PPP felt compelled to protect what it saw were advances made by the PNC government by showing solidarity.
The decision by the PPP was internally controversial and very unpopular among a section of its supporters. Only two years before the worst rigging of elections had taken place. The PNC took a two-third majority and in the process two PPP supporters were shot, thrown in the back of a military vehicle, while the vehicle spent hours collecting ballot boxes, and in which they bled to death. Immediately after the elections the PPP had decided on a policy of non-cooperation and civil resistance. Hundreds of PPP supporters were being continually harassed by the police, the magistracy and the judiciary. Thus the PPP’s change in policy took place at a time when the PPP and democracy were under serious attacks.
As a result of the change in policy, engagements between the PPP and PNC took place for the first time since the early 1960s, led by Burnham and Jagan respectively. At the final meeting in December, 1976, Burnham demanded the withdrawal of an editorial in the Mirror in November, 1976, entitled “Guns instead of Bread,” which criticized a mini budget which had just been presented in October. The PPP refused and the talks broke down. The PPP had been hoping that a ‘political solution,’ which it had been advocating, would have been on the agenda for the talks.
Undaunted, in August, 1977, the PPP launched its version of a ‘political solution’ in the form of the National Patriotic Front. The proposal envisaged that the executive President would be chosen by the party which obtained the second largest number of votes in free and fair elections and the prime minister, with defined powers, would be nominated by the party obtaining the second largest amount of votes. The PPP was effectively conceding the top post of executive president to the PNC. The PNC rejected the proposals, which had been approved by the PPP’s Central Committee only after intense and divisive debates.
Even though throughout the 1970s to the 1990s the PPP continued to call for a political solution, which it eventually defined by the National Patriotic Front, it lost interest in a political solution after 1997. However, the issue was still politically resonant and on February 11, 2003, it announced a policy of ‘building trust and confidence’ leading to ‘greater inclusive governance.’ It hinted at potential talks leading to a national unity government after ‘trust and confidence’ is established between the political parties. But it did not follow through and had no intention of doing so.
The PPP, through Mr. Anil Nandlall, has now once again invoked a discredited formula akin to ‘trust and confidence,’ now designated as a ‘conducive atmosphere’ or a ‘peaceful atmosphere’ as a pre-requisite for discussions. According to Nandlall: “Mass dismissals of public officers and contractual workers of the state in a manner that reeks of political and ethnic discrimination, political witch-hunting and executive arrogance will not create such an atmosphere but indeed will achieve the reverse.” The message clearly is that for the PPP, a political solution for Guyana, to which Cheddi Jagan had devoted his life, for which he sought unconditional negotiations and in which he engaged in 1985 at the invitation of the PNC, is no longer part of its agenda.
The PPP is intent on throwing obstacles in the path of national unity in order to ensure its own ethno-political dominance. As Ogunsaye says, the PPP believes that it can win the next elections just as it believed it could have won the last two. In order to defeat this objective, the government needs to define and coordinate its approach. The government may consider it necessary to make a formal approach to the Leader of the Opposition, broadly defining its ideas on national unity, without taking public positions from which it would be reluctant to climb down. It needs to recognize that the Prime Minister can lead the process without being physically present at the talks. The PPP must not be handed on a platter the opportunity to cause the failure of a drive for national unity.
(MY ARTICLES WILL NOW BE PUBLISHED ON CONVERSATIONTREE.GY AT 8.00 PM INSTEAD OF 7.00 PM)
History teaches fools.
Only by not repeating it we demonstrate political maturity. The political cl asses in Guyana seems to
prefer living in the past …. they must move forward
if progress is to be achieved. It is absolute naievty
to apply same solution to old issues and expect
different results. New thinking by the political class
is a perquisite for good governance.
Let bygones be bygones and let’s move forward and onward regardless of past issues….please !
DESPERTION IN PNC LED COALITION IS PROMPTING URGENCY FOR TALKS WITH PPP/C
Dear Mr Ramkarran
Kindly consider my letter as a response to your column. While we bleed you seem to have forgotten our pains. Why?
Respectfully,
Sultan Mohamed
Confusion,uncertainty about Guyana’s stalled economy, anxiety and desperation best describes Mr Tacuma Ogunseye’s KN letter of 9-19-2015 titled “Jagdeo will use these talks as a testing ground for his political survival”. Mr Ogunseye is obviously living in a dream world if he believes Dr Bharat Jagdeo does not speak for the PPP/C and most Guyanese. What the PNC/AFC coalition and many others have come to realise is the PPP/C mass membership and leadership can easily reject any demands by the PNC to rescue them by talks of unity. The PNC violently brutalised and cheated PPP/C supporters repeatedly even as they continue to put Guyana’s economy in jeopardy.
Mr Ogunseye and company’s vapid posturing tells much about mindsets that are involved in their own crabdance but believe they are not sewer muddied in smelly sludge. From his vantage point, can anyone understand his contradictions when he writes, in his own words mind you, that ” It is hard to see how a man whose leadership has redefined Guyanese politics in the most retrogressive way, can overnight, without any public self criticism, contribute in any positive way to national reconciliation and healing.” So why are the PNC, AFC and Ogunseyes of this world in desperate chahtaay (licking or slurping) mode of the PPP/C Opposition Leader’s help? Unprecedented was Mr Granger’s invitation to the PPP/C Opposition leader to address his PNC’s central committee! Something is rotten in the state of Denmark (Shakespeare’s Hamlet) and everybody knows it.
Mr Clement Rohee as the PPP’s General Secretary continues to rise in national esteem by his survival and ascendancy within his party and country in championing the poor and underprivileged. What is there so doubtful to see which needs a handlamp? It is very clear the PNC coalition is lost up the creek and without a paddle or prayer. In desperation it demands to be rescued but yet remain captain of the capsized canoe by entitlement insistence that the PPP/C go to their aid. With sugar and rice in crisis, bauxite and gold prices still falling, and timber exports in rapid decline, obvious PNC inexperience and confusion quickly responds by slashing pensioners water and electricity subsidy to give poor Guyanese more misery. Why was the Women of Worth’s (WOW) programme scrapped when it provided small loans to start private business ventures and 60 guilty prisoners were quickly freed resulting in a surge in crime? Make no mistake. The PNC coalition is in one giant mess with its leaders ill equipped to run a country. Complaint, riots and “bully the coolie” (Prime Minister Moses Nagamootoo’s parliamentary tone words) is what blatantly guides their management style. Yet Lindeners continue to be subsidized for cheaper electricity for no good reason except they are good rioters whiles the rest of Guyanese suffer by an active PNC coalition policy of increasing poverty.
Why didn’t the PNC led coalition include the PPP/C from day one in a national unity government after GECOM’s rigged elections of May 2015? Any such mutual agreement would have witnessed Guyana’s Constitution dramatically being changed with both parties making the necessary constitutional adjustment to allow post election coalitions. Unfortunately for them, the PNC coalition felt that the AFC 10 percent Indian votes completely allowed them political power as the final solution to all Guyana’s problems. How soon wicked PNC rigging has come back to haunt them. After the 2011 elections the PNC’s wailed that the minority PPP/C government did not include them in a national unity government. It has always been the hypocrisy of entitlement which is so typical of that party. They cannot practice what they preach.
The truth of the matter is the PNC believes it is entitled to piggyback on the PPP/C at all times and any resistance is met repeatedly to “bully the coolie” by violence and entitlements. This must be rejected and Dr Jagdeo correctly reflects the popular Guyanese view of resistance. None have the courage ( including Mr Ralph Ramkarran et all) to publicly speak out against PNC atrocities which is most pathetically disappointing. What can the AFC leadership offer of a coalition mean when anything coming from them has no substance- even for themselves. The AFC has currently lost all their support and dare not go independently into the local elections which will inevitably find them vaporized for sure.
It is obvious the PPP/C will win the next general and local government elections hands down because Mr David Granger has too much baggage with rigging his party and national elections and they are lost at sea in managing Guyana’s affairs. Personally ill equipped for managing the country and with his reported ill health the Ogunseyes in our midst are seeking to build nets before our Humpty Dumpty falls crashing from their high walls. Give Mr Ogunseye credit where it is due. He may know some truth. In his letter he wrote ” It is doubtful at this period in PPP/C’s history ( he means Guyana’s history) that there will be a party position on any significant issue that is different to that of Mr. Jagdeo’s. Well what do you know! That Dr Jagdeo reflects popular opinion needs no more explanations.
The dominant anxiety within the PNC/AFC coalition is Mr Ogunseye’s public admission that Mr Granger is faced with many serious and burdensome internal problems which are overwhelming. Mr Ogunseye’s unwittingly lets out a secret about Mr Granger. Mr Ogunseye wrote: ” He has to win APNU+AFC supporters, or, run the risk of being seen as betraying post elections expectations as it relates to the accountability of the former regime. He also has to be careful that the unity talks are not seen as a political ploy to consolidate power between the elites of the two political blocks at the expense of national interest”. Mr Ogunseye must know that neither he nor the current crop can anymore determine what is in the “national interest” as a by product of internal PNC wrangling. Get with the programme to rebuild Guyana by Federalism and rise to the top of your own magnificence. Can you do it? Yes you can – all by yourselves with the AFC.
Sultan Mohamed
National Unity is only possible when all sides share the same objective: a truly democratic Guyana where everyone has a fair opportunity to share the economic and social benefits.