Dear Editor,
I cannot believe the naivety of Mr Clarence F Ellis. In his response to the letter captioned, “Mr Burke and others fail to understand the need to develop a genuine multiracial democracy”, Mr Ellis in his letter, “Changing ethnic voting patterns is much harder than Mr Persaud seems to imagine”, argues that we should “redirect (s) Mr Persaud’s focus for genuine reform from the PNC to the PPP”. Now, why would Mr Ellis believe that the PPP would want to dismantle the ethnic voting pattern, which has brought it so much success?
Indians are in the majority and the PPP is a predominantly Indian party. That’s a winning ticket. I am not an intellectual but my limited commonsense tells me that there is no need for the PPP to change. It is the duty of the PNC and AFC to break up that pattern. Can it be done? Yes. Are racial voting patterns entrenched in the Guyanese psyche? Maybe.
This answer may be contrary to popular belief but this is the way I see it. Intellectuals talk about “analysis” but the Guyanese voting patterns have not been tested under various scenarios.
How would Indians react to African leaders in both the PNC and PPP, and what would be the response if Indians headed both parties? My take on the position of the Indian voter as it relates to the way they cast their vote is this. They are in the majority (even though the difference may be slim) and after their experiences and frustration under the past PNC leadership they would definitely want to vote for someone they believe would be understanding of their needs. Their insecurity is PPP’s gain.
African intellectuals are not willing to think outside the box.
Those who are thinking about shared governance and armed struggle are unimaginative. I definitely agree with Mr Dennis Wiggins’ letter captioned “Armed struggle is not an option; peaceful co-existence is our only hope” (07.11.04). The African community as it is today is already battered, thanks to its leadership both political and sociological. Adding the after effects of an armed struggle to this is madness.
Tacuma Ogunseye in his letter, “I am trying to promote a serious discussion on the form the struggle should take”, wrote, “Our challenge is to map out our own path to our liberation as an African community and as a Guyanese nation. Our past and present experiences in electoral politics conducted in the framework of an entrenched racial voting culture and a winner take all political system has shown the limitations of that form of political struggle”.
This is a doom and gloom mindset. What about thinking of using a strategy instead of aggression? Why not neutralize the ethnic voting patterns by appointing popular Indians to head the opposition parties then all the parties will have to go after the popular African votes to make a difference. This situation will mean that the Indians will feel comfortable and the leaders will pay more attention to Africans if they want to be elected. We have got to put personal political ambitions aside and think about Guyana as a whole. That’s what patriots do.
This is a strategy, I think, the PNC should have put in place after the death of Mr Hoyte and definitely at their last congress. Winston Murray and not Mr Corbin or Mr Alexander should be leading.
The AFC had a better chance to make an impact. If they had listened to my suggestion, Mr Ramjattan would have been the leader. Mr Ramjattan would have pulled considerable Indian votes as the leader. The glaring mistake manifested itself soon after the last election when the party was deciding on parliamentarians. Listen to the remarks of a disgruntled AFC member.
She compared Mr Trotman with Mr Burnham and claimed racial discrimination. This was bad publicity, killing potential Indian support. If Mr Ramjattan were the leader there would have been nothing negative to make a scene about.
Maybe it is too late for the AFC to use this strategy but the PNC still has that window of opportunity. Everyone is saying that there is a need for Mr Corbin to step aside. The replacement should be Mr Winston Murray. The AFC cannot make a change at this point but that does not mean that Mr Trotman does not have options. His character may be able to give him an advantage if he aggressively goes after Indian support.
The letter, “African Guyanese leaders must be much more development oriented” by Lin-Jay Harry-Voglezon should be good reading for our intellectuals. Read it, read it, and read it again.
This letter encapsulates the problems in the African Guyanese community. At the end of it all, regardless of who is in power, African Guyanese need direction. If our leaders and intellectuals can understand what Lin-Jay Harry-Voglezon is pointing out, (and they should because it is written in very good intellectual language) and they can simulate programmes based on that observation (encourage foreign investment as one example) Guyanese and African Guyanese in particular can look forward to a decent future.
Yours faithfully,
F. Skinner