Dear Editor,
Dr David Hinds’ publicized contribution at the WPA’s first ‘Groundings’ public discussion distinguished him as someone who is extremely reasoned and politically seasoned, and that’s why I felt shell-shocked when I read where he made an unforgivable political gaffe that the “AFC ignored changes in PNC when rejecting electoral alliance,” (SN, August 15).
If he doesn’t mind, I would like to ask him to be more specific about the changes in the PNCR, because on his lone lame reference to the PNC deciding to hold a free and fair election as a sign of change, let the records show that while the PNC must be complimented for holding a free and fair election in 1992 after 24 years, that election was not held voluntarily.
While international financial donor agencies and Western nations were greatly impressed with the changes the Desmond Hoyte administration was implementing after Forbes Burnham died in 1985, they also recognized that his ‘above board’ 1985 election victory was rigged and so they pressed him to hold elections as a pre-condition for continued business deals. Even the late Dr Cheddi Jagan and former US President Jimmy Carter were credited with urging international pressure on the Hoyte administration, so Dr Hinds may want to re-think his claim that the PNC has changed because it held free and fair elections in 1992.
To comply, and with the election originally due in 1990, Hoyte needed extra time to properly position the PNC for a free and fair contest, and so the delaying tactics kicked in, resulting in elections being held two years later. When the PNC lost, then Deputy PNC Leader, Mr Hamilton Green, blurted out that Hoyte was a ‘schoolboy’ for caving in to international pressure, and that remark can be seen as proof that the election was not held voluntarily or was even strife free.
Now, let’s fast forward to the post-Hoyte years with Mr Robert Corbin at the helm. If we can call an end to the post-’92 PNC-inspired street protests and demonstrations which had bouts of violence and destruction as their trademarks, a sign of change in the PNC, then I’ll agree. However, if Mr Corbin called off the street protests to give the President enough time to firmly establish himself over the government and party and then invite Mr Corbin/PNC to share governance, then this is not true change but an exchange of agreements in an orchestrated deal.
Due to the highly secretive nature of the Jagdeo-Corbin talks – which must be seen in a different light from any possible PPP-PNC talks – speculation has been rife about a deal in the works for the President to get a third term, either with backing from his party or parliamentary help from the PNC. And if a deal was actually cut, one has to wonder whether the street protests played a role or if the President knew of plans by the PPP before Dr Jagan died to consider shared governance with the PNC, and so he and the PNC Leader decided to cut a secret deal.
Also, if there is a deal, then the whole concept of a ‘changed PNC’ will create a new set of political dynamics in this discussion, for whereas we know that the PPP and PNC, as political parties, will do and say anything, including working together at times, to ensure their survival and supremacy at the expense of others, the political power game today could be boiling down to individuals – Jagdeo and Corbin – instead of political parties.
Whether the WPA is on to this, hence its shocking alliance with its brutal political adversary, the PNC, is not known, but since the PNC cannot beat the PPP in a straight election fight based on racial voting, there can only be one catch to the WPA aligning with the PNC: to play a political game that already has a fixed outcome. Will 2011 see a President Jagdeo, Prime Minister Corbin and government positions for those parties/groups that supported the ‘unchanged’ PNC?
If there is no fixed political outcome in 2011 featuring a third term/shared governance deal, then there can be no logic to the WPA’s alliance with the PNC this early in the race for the 2011 election. And so I would have to concur with political commentator/activist, Mr Freddie Kissoon, who pointed out areas that caused him to disagree that the PNC is a changed political animal.
In addition, if the PNC has changed and is now an inclusive party, why didn’t it extend an invitation to the other parliamentary parties, including the AFC, to join in the talks with the President on ‘parliamentary matters’? Yet when the AFC decided to shut out the PNC in an election alliance, the PNC, the WPA and others are getting all worked up? ‘Parliamentary matters’ are public matters, yet neither the President nor the PNC Leader ever released joint statements to the media on the nature of their many private discussions, which we recently learned had note-takers present at each session. Are the WPA and its partners aligned with the PNC on to something that the AFC is not?
History continues to be a great teacher and those who refuse to learn from the mistakes of the past are doomed to repeat those mistakes. In 1964, the PNC coalesced with the UF to oust the PPP, but in 1968 the PNC ditched the UF. Before 1992, the PPP was part of a coalition, then it wound up taking Mr Sam Hinds from GUARD to be Prime Minister as part of the party’s Civic arm. GUARD fossilized and the Civic arm is now limp. The PNC decided to match the PPP and so it attached a Reform arm, which is also now limp. Neither the PPP nor the PNC has changed, and if there is collaboration between the President and the PNC Leader in 2011, then surely nothing will change.
Yours faithfully,
Emile Mervin
