Dear Editor,
In a letter in SN dated July 23 and captioned ‘Delegates and observers have numerous opportunities to actively participate in PPP congress discussions and deliberations,’ Mr Hydar Ally, the Education Secretary of the PPP responded to my letter dated July 22, ‘There are no interactive discussions at the party congress.’ My stress was on “interactive.” In my opinion this is critically very different in our understanding from the word ‘active.’ Delegates speak, leaders answer and rationalize and justify. End.
Mr Ally states that I chose not to identify myself by name. So why are there phantom writers defending the government?
Mr Ally states, “Congress is the highest decision making forum of the party.” Then he should tell us why the decision by the party congress to have 20% Civic in the government is being flouted. Which congress changed the congress’s duration from three days to two, reducing considerably the opportunity for delegates and observers to really discuss? Was it not the Central Committee (CC) of the party? One has to take into account that unlike in the past, the discussions have not only to do with the party and its organization but also the way the party as a government performs. The two-day limit ensures that no proper and interactive discussion of policy can take place.
I mentioned Dr Jagan’s practice of having secondary level leadership interacting with higher level leadership in a way that facilitated real discussion. Mr Ally will admit that this has all but ceased. While the members would defend the government and party in the press there is no structure set up to respond to their concerns.
Mr Ally states, “At no time was any attempt made at a previous congress to remove Marxism Leninism from the party constitution.” He should note that my letter asked, “Did a previous congress not oppose a resolution to remove Marxism-Leninism from the party constitution?” This resolution was presented by Prakash Ramjattan and it was discussed at length in the press. Mr Ally would recall that another resolution was presented requesting that the congress itself decide on the top leaders of the party. If I am not mistaken this was deferred to a future congress, but I guess the leaders do not really want to empower congress. I guess what happened to Moses should make members realise the necessity of having a direct say, as their voices are being over-ruled by the very persons that they elect to CC. They should be very careful how they vote at the next congress.
There is a dire need to ensure that those who still maintain Jagan’s legacy are placed in a position as leaders. They should counter the efforts of some of the leadership to foster their friends and families’ entry into the CC. If the party is Marxist Leninist then they should identify those who should enter the leadership, for at the moment the right as opposed to the left is in control of the CC.
Marxist dialectics is a major advance with regards to a methodological approach. Tremendous debates took place historically leading to this methodology and yet most Guyanese have not heard of dialectics and are taught to appreciate its use. Most of the new members of the party have no idea of Marxism Leninism. Does Mr Ally appreciate as Education Secretary, that even though the immediate thrust is to build a national democratic state, there is a necessity to educate our nation and our youths in a clearer understanding of the historical processes?
Does he recognize that race and class are inversely proportional and education about dialectics and historical materialism could reduce the effective utilization of race as a tool to divide our people? Does the party realize it lost a good opportunity to reeducate our people? Had it done so it may have been placed in a better position to attract persons of all races who would have been sympathetic to Jagan’s legacy. The new members of the party are not even introduced to the historical songs of the PPP. Most of them do not even know the national songs. The patriotic cultural vibrancy of the PPP and the PYO is a thing of the past. There has been no thrust to do so at the national level where it is so necessary. How therefore can Mr Ally prepare Marxists in the party and how therefore can a people which is patriotic and nationalist in aspiration be producd? Could the Education Secretary venture to say what percentage of the 1500 delegates to congress has any real ideas of Marxism Leninism? We have failed as a nation because an important section of the people we have put in position have concentrated on their efforts towards self-aggrandisement, nepotism and favouritism.
Is Mr Ally a Marxist Leninist?
Yours faithfully,
(Name and address provided)
