Dear Editor,
I refer to a letter by Mr Frederick Kissoon in SN on August 7 (‘It is not the age of an activist which matters…’), his second response to my call for a new writers and thinkers for our political discourse. This is my last letter on the issue. Reading his two letters and that of Dr Hinds (‘History is always being contested and revised’ SN, July 25), it appears as if I am misunderstood, so let me clarify a few things. My concern is about political discourse and not political activism, and there is a difference. While I referred to the ’80s generation (meaning people who came of age then), it is not the issue here and should not distract; reference was made because people who came of age then now have a significant presence in the electorate and have their own families but are not shaping political discourse.
It means that Mr Kissoon is correct to say that the age of an activist matters not if he/she is making sense. But the point is not about any “activist” or age per se; the point is that political discourse needs independent participants not tied traditionally to the big 3 parties, if it is to have teeth. Otherwise, it’s just the same people who are too familiar with each other, using techniques and mannerisms too commonplace to be viable or challenging. Instead of being entrenched in political discourse, many of our elders should have been writing books, not letters in the press, an improper mean of preserving political evidence for posterity. Mrs Janet Jagan should not have been managing the Mirror’s voice; Mr Hamilton Green is yet to give us a definitive book.
That aside, we like to make a short story long; it is tiring and removes us from our main concern. Mr Kissoon’s recent letter appears to move from my main concern about new writers and thinkers, to me. Thus, I must now defend myself.
One: he used racial stereotyping and inferred that I am biased in that I find “time to write on the PNC” but not on Mr Jagdeo’s “elected dictatorship.” That is, I am East Indian; therefore I like the PPP and abhor the PNC. Of course I find “time” to write on the PNC, but not as much as the PPP. Over the past 3 years, for example, I wrote two PNC-related letters; one called for democratic reform within the PNC and one dealt with Mr Robert Corbin.
That said, I wrote dozens of articles/letters reflecting Mr Kissoon’s “elected dictatorship’s” failure to protect Guyanese; indeed, I once asked crime-victim families to deny PPP folks entry into wake houses to offer their respect, which prevented them from large-scale protests. Long before either was fashionable, I called (thrice) for Mr Ronald Gajraj‘s resignation, and for an inquiry into all parties involved in the crime blitz.
Mr Kissoon wanted Mr Roger Khan to help bring democratic reforms to the PPP; he has forgotten that I argued repeatedly for such democratic reforms, as during the Jagdeo-Ramjattan dispute and upon the arrival of a book on Mr Balram Singh Rai.
In 2006, I attended an AFC rally and told Mr Khemraj Ramjattan that I hoped the party excels at the polls. My allegiance was not to the party, but the idea it represented. I wrote asking voters to vote for a change, and even told Mr Anil Nandlall, a PPP MP, about my hope.
I wrote (August 14) against torture and sent a letter to SN agreeing with the tossing of the tortured (late) Mr David Leander’s confession about an assassination of a PPP minister. I criticized the President for his refusal to officially protest an extraordinary rendition of an ordinary Guyanese national. (Mr Kissoon is yet to write about rendition.)
While the public will decide whether the colour of my skin flows from the nib of my pen, it is instructive of the state of political discourse when someone of Mr Kissoon’s status, would resort so quickly (after one letter) to stereotyping and character assassination to organize his arguments.
Two: I never evaded his question about so-called “new” blood. Rather, I was ahead of his thought process. Had he exercised due diligence, he would have noted that on July 18, I wrote about political discourse dominated by “people with ties” to the PPP, PNC, and WPA; the phrase accounts for his “new” blood.
Three: he has no contribution to make as to the aspects of political discourse mentioned on July 18, such as the quality of the writing, but is “unhappy” to find the names of 2 WPA figures, one of whom told me to question political figures (David Hinds, Demico House, 2004). He is, arguably, happy with my criticism of PPP and PNC figures (eg, Mr. Donald Ramotar and Mr Winston Murray). I did not deny him his right to applaud his heroes and their political activism, and he should not deny me my right to question them and their political discourse.
Four: He digs into my past and objects (not surprisingly) to something I said (June 16) in opposition to a sentiment expressed by Dr David Hinds (June 6), that the PPP had a “limited legitimacy” to govern. I said that under our election laws, it has an “absolute” mandate to govern the entire republic. Of course, on June 16 Mr Kissoon, a lecturer in politics, had no problem with this political statement. But today, he says it reflects old political theory.
With respect, this gentleman is wasting my time. If it is old political theory, then it is his job to take this up with the legislature because unlike Dr Hinds’ view, it is a matter of private opinion, mine was a matter of law. Mr Kissoon verified this by saying that the PPP (his “elected dictatorship”) has a “legal mandate to govern.” (Incidentally, a troubling oxymoron.) With some waging low-level warfare on this legal “elected dictatorship,” a talk of a “limited legitimacy” is dangerous rhetoric and not a talk about “morals.”
Finally, it is unclear why Mr Kissoon is putting words in my mouth. This is a low blow. I never said that the PPP has a mandate to “abuse power.” What is clear is the incoherence of his argument. First, he says that by “absolute” I meant that the PPP can “abuse power, not govern.”
Then he reverses and says: “I don’t know what Mr Rampertab means by absolute.” A political scientist who speaks about an “elected dictatorship” but does not know what “absolute” mandate means? Need I say more to show that political discourse needs new writers and thinkers?
Yours faithfully,
Rakesh Rampertab
