Dear Editor,
Stabroek News (SN) on Friday, March 21, 2008 published a letter from Minister Clement Rohee captioned, “Mr. Ogunseye‘s approach in rejecting compromise and realpolitik as reflected in the day- to- day struggle for a better Guyana leaves the political arena open to the worst elements in our midst”. The minister’s letter was in response to one I had authored, which was published in both the SN and Kaieteur News (KN) on March 14, 2008 under the respective captions “Minister Rohee seems to be losing control” and “Rohee may turn out to be his own worst enemy”.
In his reply, the minister failed to assure his party supporters and the nation that, unlike what I had claimed, he has not lost his self-control. All that his letter has done is send clear signals to the world at large that when he chooses to he can be reckless beyond belief.
The discourse between the minister and me would have been enhanced if he, during the course of his arguments, had attempted to address the issues, which I had raised and in the process, attempted to disprove them. Instead, in his now familiar arrogant style he resorted to diversionary tactics by raising issues that he referred to as Black cultural nationalism and political extremism – and sought to link ASCRIA, the WPA, ACDA and Walter Rodney in an effort to cover up his inability to effectively refute my assessment of his conduct.
Rohee posited in his letter that I had set out in mine to discredit him. That statement provides irrefutable evidence of his inability to engage in self-criticism. If he had the ability to so indulge, he would have recognised the validity of my criticisms and would have made the necessary adjustments in his public conduct.
My sole intention in my letter was to advise him about the imminent danger to his career by his reckless political behaviour. However, it seems that Rohee, like so many others in the ruling political directorate, are beyond the pale. They are so hell bent to preserve the status quo and their personal power that they often choose to ignore advice which has been offered.
I wish to state that my personal attitude to public polemics is to get involved when the opportunity is provided to influence political developments and to raise public consciousness, and not to indulge in self glorification.
Rohee, in recognising his changed role from that of opposition activist to government minister, has admitted that his politics has undergone change, something which I pointed to in my letter. On this issue, we have agreement.
This change in Rohee’s politics is a logical one since a politician in power is not a politician in opposition. Where he becomes illogical is when he wants those of us in the political opposition not to behave like an opposition force. In this regard, he expects me to have an unchanged attitude to the PNCR and wants me to treat that party as if it is in power and the political situation has not undergone change. In other words, while Rohee accepts that the political scenario has changed for him and the PPP/C post 1992, he is advocating that the other forces, which were opposed to the PNC in pre-elections 1992, should continue to function as if that scenario still exists.
He also wants me to do as he and his party are doing – practice the politics of hate and confrontation against the PNC purely for the sake of confrontation.
He sought to give readers the erroneous impression that I am stuck in the past by advocating my politics has not evolved or adjusted to the political realities of the nation. If this was so, I would have been doing what Rohee and the PPP/C want me to do – ie fight the PNCR as I did when they were in office. Rohee is deeply disappointed that I have not fallen prey to the divide and rule tactics of the PPP/C leadership. He is also playing the race card by telling PPP/C Indian supporters that I am against PPP/C and Indian rule. He knows that given the political consciousness in the Indian community he doesn’t have to explain the inherent contradictions in his position. He is aware that once he or any other PPP leader says that Tacuma Ogunseye is anti- PPP/C and anti-Indian, the Indian masses will not question the soundness of his position.
This is deliberate, extremely dangerous and is a major problem in Guyanese politics. The fact that for many years when the PPP and Indians were out of power I fought with them against the PNC, for PPP and Indian rights to be respected now means nothing, and is of no consequence once I am seen as being politically opposed to the PPP’s leadership style of governance of the country and dare to publicly voice my opposition to what I have perceived to be wrong.
In addressing what Rohee referred to as my extremist politics I want to say that from the moment I began public life my politics have been influenced by both race and class.
To date that has not changed. That consciousness continues to shape my attitude to the politics of both the PNCR and the PPP/C and that of the wider country. My lifestyle and material condition make it impossible for my politics to be void of class considerations. Those who believe differently are mindless. They can continue to exist in their fool’s paradise. Unlike Rohee my class position has not changed.
What is extremist in my politics? And how far has it changed from the 70s? In the 70s, I supported the political position that the multi- racial working people united in class consciousness and ideology was the decisive force in national politics. However, the results of the 1992 and subsequent general elections have demonstrated that the working people in Guyana have, in their own wisdom, chosen to suspend their struggle for the hegemony of the working people or working class. Instead of multi-racial and class politics the masses opted for race politics.
Out of respect for the people and their stated political position, I was forced to adjust my “public politics” and to engage the masses from their level of consciousness, to influence them to a position of national reconciliation and rejection of racial domination. I am convinced that until we achieve these objectives the liberation of the working people will continue to elude us. Rohee should tell the nation why his party, which has claimed to be the vanguard of the working class has abandoned the working people since it was returned to power in 1992 and particularly, after the death of President Cheddi Jagan.
For many years I have been a strong, very vocal advocate for a national solution to our political crisis based on Executive Power Sharing /Shared Governance. May I point out that for me, supporting a power sharing arrangement based on constitutional reform is a struggle against the old politics of winner take all and the politics of removing one party of a certain race from office and replacing it with another party of another race. My politics is about the end of one party and one race rule in the country.
I ask in earnestness, is this extremism? Is this not politics of compromise and recognition of the realpolitik in the country. Rohee clearly does not share this view. Why? This is so because he is now a member of the ruling class and he and his party have benefited tremendously from racial politics and racial voting.
Rohee’s unwillingness to see African marginalization under the PPP/C government is not surprising since as a person of mixed race in an Indian party, his political survival demands that he denies the obvious. On the other hand, he has no difficulties pointing to African marginalization under the Burnham and Hoyte regimes. How hypocritical. He accused me of being a proponent of African marginalization, when in fact I have written on numerous occasions that I preferred to discuss oppression rather than marginalization and my preference is tactical. Since the new hallmark of the minister is reflected in his political recklessness and a blatant disregard for truth, this distinction in my political position is of no importance to him.
I wish to remind Minister Rohee that the favourite slogan of the PPP and the late Dr Jagan before he became President was, “Political and Racial Discrimination”. Rohee referred to the 70s and pointed out “when certain East Indian racist and religious elements in an effort to capitalize, on a prevailing view at the time, that Indians were being “marginalized and discriminated against” morphed into political extremism resulting in a call to Indians to pick up guns to remove the PNC from office”. He then went on to give the impression that the PPP rejected the armed option but failed to truthfully say why. The real reason is that they felt that they could not win given US hostility and the fact that the security forces were predominantly African and supportive of Burnham and the PNC. The PPP leadership was not willing to take the risk which is inherent in armed struggle. Their position therefore had little to do with the rejection of Indian racists and religious elements and extremist politics, but instead, was rooted in that party’s fear of the US and of Burnham’s military might. Instead of trying to hide the facts Rohee should come clean and state the true position, and don’t try to place wool over the people’s eyes.
At this time I want to pose the following question to Minister Rohee which I hope will elicit a public response from him. In your judgment, Minister Rohee, were Indians subject to marginalization and racial discrimination under Burnham and PNC rule or, was it just their perception?
Mr Rohee invoked the situation in African countries like Sudan, Zimbabwe, Kenya, Uganda and Liberia, not to make a class point but instead, to justify African oppression under the PPP/C. He wants Africans to believe that their situation is not as bad as their leaders are claiming. There are important political lessons we in Guyana can benefit from, in the experiences of the countries mentioned above. Of course, the minister is unwilling to recognize them. For example, all those countries have shown that wherever one party, one ethnic group rule exists, the experience ends in failure. Only the politics of national reconciliation based on shared governance can preserve the nation. Another important lesson is that the politics of hate and permanent enemies destroy, rather than build a nation. As an African political activist, these matters are foremost in my mind and influence my present politics.
Finally, I must admit that I have failed in my effort to get Minister Clement James Rohee to realize that if he is not careful he can destroy himself politically. As a politician who had the opportunity to serve as Prime Minister of Guyana, is it too much to ask that he show respect for the nation and its institutions? Rohee continues to demonstrate his lack of political maturity. If he continues on his present path he would soon be history, politically.
Yours faithfully,
Tacuma Ogunseye
