Dear Editor,

I offer an evaluation of the person GHK Lall has opined is the better candidate for the PPP’s nomination of its presidential candidate in his letter, ‘The chosen one’ (SN, Sunday, January 31). Mr Lall did not name his choice but instead used a circumlocutory style in identifying the likely winner. He referred to the person as part grandmaster, therefore I will refer to this person as PG  from hereon.

The difficulty we have with PG is that not much has been written about him before the blow-up with Moses Nagamootoo over the presidential nomination. But PG has long been a Machiavellian player in the PPP. Some incidents need to be brought to light. It is when you expose this man’s long political career to revisionist analysis that you see that in the comparative context he is suspect. He is my last choice for the presidency from any party, because he is the least committed to Guyana. Out of the PPP’s list, he is the only one not prepared to forego huge income for public service. In fairness to Dr Frank Anthony, he was earning a fat salary with an IBD project when he was called to the cabinet. He suffered income diminution in becoming a minister. Donald Ramotar did not insist on a high-paying job after the death of Dr Jagan. He agreed to stay at Freedom House and run the PPP ship.

Mr PG has strenuously resisted taking up a cabinet post since 1992 because he has told all the PPP leaders including Dr and Mrs Jagan that should he do so he would lose money from his particular occupation. This was the fundamental mistake he made and it came back to haunt him in 1997. He was devastated in the debate as to who should get the party’s nomination because his detractors labelled him an opportunist. They loudly proclaimed that all he wanted was the presidency not a cabinet post. At the last PPP congress at Diamond, he was thoroughly routed. He then wrote a letter in the newspaper accusing some of his colleagues in the PPP leadership of dirtying him at the congress. I had two relatives who were delegates. They told me two powerful PPP princes did campaign against Mr PG telling delegates that he was only interested in the presidency and nothing else. The point they circulated to delegates was that Mr PG is an opportunist who only wanted the coveted prize.

This is a permanent blot against Mr PG and once that opprobrium is promulgated among those that have to choose the presidential candidate, then he will lose out to his competitors especially two of them. The egregious accusation against Mr PG is that he has put money in front of service to the PPP government. It is the weapon in his competitors’ arsenal that they will use to shoot him down. The untold story of Mr PG must be written about. During the Hoyte presidency, he became the only opposition activist including all in the PPP, WPA, DLM and other organizations to openly voice support for the 1980 constitution. This he proclaimed at a forum at a time when only the Catholic Standard was in operation. He never thought that the Standard would carry his attitude to the 1980 constitution because the press was not present. But the Standard got a report and published it. I was in the office when he called Father Morrison berating him for reporting on the forum. I couldn’t believe that he asked Father for a retraction.

We now come to the Jagdeo agenda. Mr PG has openly endorsed the style and politics of Mr Jagdeo, thereby committing political suicide. If you are going to contest the presidential nomination, strategic thinking would dictate that you distance yourself from the Jagdeo agenda. Not Mr PG. He writes glowingly of Mr Jagdeo because his configuration is that in the showdown to come, Mr Jagdeo’s endorsement will be the crucial blow – whoever Mr Jagdeo prefers will win.

I could go on to write copiously of Mr PG which includes his inherent uneasiness with the press. I suspect that if Mr PG becomes president he will not enjoy a healthy relationship with the press. He has always been suspicious of a free press. Finally, Mr PG will never tell us who Dr. Pedro Archandro is that he is fond of quoting. He never will. If and when he does, it will undo him.

Yours faithfully,
Frederick Kissoon