Dear Editor,
I am not in the habit of writing letters to the press but occasionally, just occasionally, one sees an item which makes a response imperative. The letter in SN by Major (rtd) CS Vaughn on September 8 (‘The PNCR has never attempted to capture the Indian vote’) was just such an item. It was a gem. The level of objectively puts many of our regular ‘intellectual’ commentators, local and diasporic, to shame. Major Vaughn was able to straddle a polarisation, which bedevils political discourse in Guyana and which is the greatest hindrance to progress.
He was able to posit what should have been a recognised glaring truth: that the PNCR never attempted to win Indian support, reinforced by a view that the party is a natural heir to post-colonial power in Guyana.
There is a false analysis which pervades intellectual discussion that demographic considerations mean a permanent PPP majority in parliament.
But this does not have the level of validity attributed to it. In fact its validity has increased just because the PNCR has never made such an attempt and in many ways has shown anti-Indian orientations which discourage Indian support and make those in leadership roles in it seem opportunistic.
The PPP/C has always had a significant passive Indian support and that passive support has in fact increased substantially since the PPP has been in power. That that support remains with the PPP/C has more to do with PNCR history and evolution than with PPP/C’s governance, which has also been contributing.
Demographic considerations pose a serious problem in both Guyana and Trinidad and Tobago for democratic development. Racial considerations lead to support for governments long after they have forfeited the trust reposed in them, and encourage complacency and governance inefficiency. In Guyana the PPP/C for traditional ideological reasons has made a larger attempt to win non-racial support and Dr Jagan especially had a very strong commitment to multi-racial politics. But Guyana requires more than such a commitment. Conducive constitutionalism is very necessary but the reform necessary seems impossible in the near term.
This is why it is imperative that the PNCR should attempt to detach PPP/C’s negative Indian support by a change in direction, starting by putting untainted people and those with credible integrity and trustworthiness in charge.
In rejecting Winston Murray as party leader, it has missed a great opportunity.
The weakness of the PNCR plays to the PPP’s complacency and lack of imagination. Moreover the PPP/C’s own integrity is exposed by its own convenient reluctance to propose and support removal of authoritarian elements from the flawed constitution it inherited.
While we await utopian constitutionalism like that proposed by Dr Bertie Ramcharan in your paper, simple changes like a modernised and more multiracial PNCR and doable constitutional changes like recourse to accountable constituency parliamentary representation can begin to make a meaningful difference.
Yours faithfully,
Bishnodat Persaud
(Former Director and Head, Economic
Affairs Division, Commonwealth
Secretariat and Prof UWI)