Dear Editor,
Based on Mr. Ellis’ response in his letter captioned, “Breaking into the East Indian voting bloc is difficult because of their greater cultural cohesion”, it is clear in his mind that the PPP has done an outstanding job in ensuring continued victory. Mr. Ellis, and those with similar thinking, have accepted defeat so the suggested response is aggression. Mr. Ellis’ recent outburst about Mr. Corbin’s suitability as leader is based on Mr. Ellis’ impression that Mr. Corbin is not perpetuating a confrontational attack on the PPP and government.
I find that the problem with that strategy lies in two statements in his letter. The first, “Dr Jagan in 1957 intensified rice production to the exclusion of developing other agricultural activities. Some aquaculture has been added to the colonial activities while ground provisions and vegetables have been expanded in East Indian communities for the domestic market and for export”. Simply put, the PPP has managed to control the food production and supply.
The second statement, “the under taxation of the East Indian business class”, refers to Indian businesses competitive advantage on imports. So, if Mr. Ellis is to have his way there is no wonder as to who will be the hungry warrior.
If we should look back at the method Dr. Jagan used to get back into power we will notice that aggression was not the option. It would have been detrimental in fact. He used the sugar workers effectively. Wage issues and workers benefits were used as a disguise when in fact the idea was to destabilize the economy. Of course, there was no way of proving this. Dr. Jagan also took his case to the international community eventually resulting in the intervention of the Carter Center.
We all can remember the burning of young sugar cane, the major strikes and the army cutting cane. The reality was the sugar workers were in a position to strike. They had their kitchen gardens and cast nets as back up. Try asking public servants and teachers to strike or the Police to stop going after the “resistance”. How would these people feed their families
In general, I find that Mr. Ellis is over intellectualizing the situation in Guyana to its own detriment. With great insight the solution of Guyana’s problems can be gleaned from Mr. Ellis’ own statement. He said that I am “confused, thinking at one level that all East Indians have the same interest as the leaders of the bloc”. The reality is that because of this factor, “the PNC and the AFC can break into the bloc”. One has to be imaginative.
As I mentioned in my last letter, the PPP is surviving on the insecurities of Indians. Presently, no African led party will be able to win the majority Indian vote. The non-confrontational approach and very likely the solution would be the opposition parties putting a trustworthy, intelligent and charismatic Indian as leader, to break the deadlock. This person must have the ability to play up to, effectively expose the failures of the PPP government and garner the support of the dissatisfied Indian group while not excluding the other ethnic groups.
The PPP will definitely try to discredit this person but he or she must be prepared to resist these attacks and come out strong. Depending on the effectiveness and success of this leader we can look forward to change within two elections cycles.
If the PNC and AFC had seen it fit to implement this strategy following up to the 2006 elections they would have been half way there already. The truth is that, “the burden for the reduction of ethnic politics” lies on the opposition. The PPP has no incentive in this.
Mr. Ellis keeps making the mistake of expecting the Government and PPP to make changes to benefit the opposition and their supporters, although a proper government would and should take care of all the people. Sticking to the mindset of waiting on government hand out or approval will not work. Think about this statement, “Africans
