Dear Editor,
As to the “mechanism” by which a PPP presidential candidate is to be elected, Mrs Janet Jagan has spoken. The essence of party democracy, she said, was to let the internal life of the party be organized so as to allow for “maximum participation of its members” (see Essence of Party Democracy, 1984).

She was clear: “All necessary conditions must be established for giving members the opportunity to discuss all questions… to elect leaders and… at the same time democracy is a guarantee that the leadership will rely on collective experience rather than merely reflecting the personal views of some particular party member…”

The “common will” of the party, we are told, cannot be created except democratically (see Handbook for Group and Party Bodies). The PPP adopted these sentiments; it is time to practise them. Let the party delegates vote voluntarily for the new presidential candidate. Anything else is not transparency.

But truth be told, democracy always was an estranged idea in the PPP. Even as a party in a British colony, democracy never became a rooted guidepost.  With time, this cancer crossed the line as the general decision-making process became corrupt at its core. To try to say otherwise is to argue with history.

In more than a half-century of contesting elections, the PPP produced a mere three prime minister/presidential candidates: one seemed self-imposed, one was hand-picked, and one was selected because she produced a piece of paper which supposedly said she should be. This is not democracy, but hearsay and corruption.

It is questionable whether PPP leaders use the word “democracy” properly. It seems to be used as a technique to pacify and mislead supporters. Mr Bharrat  Jagdeo once said that “democracy is strong” in the party and that “there is no backdoor to power, which can only come from the people.” This is not true. In fact, Mr Jagdeo himself initially became presidential  candidate via backdoor politics, as he was never elected. Further, because the PPP lacks transparency, a right to associate is not a protected right. The expulsion of Mr Khemraj Ramjattan, for example, was not the result of a fair decision-making process.

Also, a lack of transparency has encouraged PPP leaders to manipulate the votes of party delegates. The most notorious case outside of 1962 is the 1998 congress at Zeeburg, where Mrs Jagan and others dishonoured the delegates’ “common will” that gave Mr Nagamootoo the second-highest number of votes.

This classic example is a reminder to all as to the reason for which the Guyana constitution provides for every adult civilian, a right to vote without needing aid or recommendation or bribe or promise from anyone. In retrospect, the cases of Mr Ramjattan and Mr Nagamootoo show that the PPP without transparency is a danger to itself; that is, when the rights of a party leader of good standing may be nullified so readily, then the rights of party delegates and supporters have little or no protection. This is something which intellectuals need to investigate: whether the traditional purpose of the party has been replaced by a new purpose – the interest of a powerful few.

The public ought to be disturbed and party delegates vigilant. Only they can oppose these powerful few. And, anything short of transparency shall fail because the decision-making ‘tradition’ in Freedom House is too shrouded in secrecy, contempt, and distrust to be fair. Thus, it is troubling when Mr Ralph Ramkarran said that there is “no need to depart” from this tradition.

Mr Ramkarran needs to correct this. He would remember that an anonymous PPP official said to Stabroek News on July 14, 2002, “The elitist practice of a selection of the presidential candidate by a few leaders, rather than the larger party membership, of such an important position is an outmoded, undemocratic mechanism.” Or that an identified PPP leader (then) denounced what he called the “Pa seh Ma, Ma seh Ba and membership suppose to seh Yeah,” mechanism.

As election comes, both the Nagamootoo and Ramkarran campaigns need to be more  assertive about transparency. (There is already much complacency.) It is the most appropriate campaign theme – greater than “change.” Those who oppose transparency know this; as such, they will try to preempt the process with ultimatums or cry “Balkanization,” or attempt to bribe or ambush the delegates.

Yours faithfully,
Rakesh Rampertab