Dear Editor,
I refer to a letter in the SN captioned ‘The traditional PPP historiography is fundamentally flawed’ by Dr Jeffrey on August 28, in response to a letter penned by yours truly. What rehash is Dr Jeffrey talking about? I did not get my facts from the West on Trial, Eusi Kwayana’s Next Witness, Dr Reid or the Kuru Kuru Ideological Centre. I got my facts from several writers who have no vested interest in defending the interest of either the PPP or the PNC. Is Dr Jeffrey saying that Rabe, Seecharan, David, Despres, Manley, Smith and the many other writers who have shaped my opinion are now PPP sympathizers? For Dr Jeffrey’s information, Clem Seecharan was criticized by pro-PPP voices for his writings on Guyana’s history, since it exposed the West on Trial as a managed version of our history in the 1960s with deep silence on some pertinent issues of that era. Am I to understand that Dr Jeffrey is attempting to revise the facts of these independent historians to justify his PNC-driven account of our history?
Will Dr Jeffrey continue to skilfully attempt to label the actions of Burnham and Jagan as one and the same, when the truth is very different? The British governor, Sir Ralph Grey, and Colonial Undersecretary Hugh Fraser, who were mandated to commence the process of imposing Burnham on the Guyanese nation had the following to say about Burnham and Jagan:
Hugh Fraser observed – “Jagan was not a serpentine character who hid his intentions, but rather one who was too open and talks too much.” (Memorandum of conversation between US Ambassador to the UK David Bruce and Hugh Fraser, August 17, 1961).
By comparison, Sir Ralph Grey dismissed Burnham as “racist, irresponsible and one who acted like a madman rather than a politician that has the potential for triggering serious violence after the 1961 elections.” (Memorandum of conversation between Governor Grey and Advisor to the US President Arthur Schlesinger, April 28, 1961).
It was Burnham who on November 5, 1961, in a public speech dismissed the victory by Dr Jagan in the 1961 elections, with the idle talk of “the PNC controls Georgetown, the civil service, police, trade unions and could shut down the country overnight.” This is exactly what he did from 1962-64 until he was given what he wanted – power. I must confess that Dr Jagan was most ill-advised and misguided, and operated like a political apprentice when he willingly signed on the dotted line to allow Duncan Sandys to choose the electoral format at the Independence Conference without consulting his legal experts, including the legendary Fenton Ramsahoye. A master schemer, even Sandys was totally shocked at Dr Jagan’s actions.
However, that is all history now; we are where we are. We have lost most of 40 years as a nation (save and except for that brief period between 1990-1997); we have lost our best brains overseas; and we have to make the best of a bad situation that was created exclusively by the PNC and the PPP.
The PNC under Hoyte had an opportunity to engage in constitutional transformation; why did they not? If the PNC wins power, what prevents them from holding on to Burnham’s constitution the way Jagdeo is enjoying it today at the expense of the people? We ‘gon give cat to watch milk?’ even when we have evidence of PNC behaviour in power? More importantly, the PNC has done nothing to demonstrate that they are different today from the PNC of the Burnham era, so who is going to trust them with constitutional transformation?
The AFC has made it pellucidly clear that within 100 days after they win the next elections they will commence the process of changing this Burnham constitution to better empower the people by reforming the electoral system, bringing greater powers to the Neighbourhood Democratic Councils, revise the power of the President to make that officeholder more accountable to the people, among the many other changes envisaged. The facts are the AFC is the only political force in Guyana with the credibility to lead on constitutional transformation.
This is the AFC’s time to build a genuine coalition of the “classes and social groups” that are willing to put Guyana first. This is not the time for backroom electoral deals, especially with the old political order represented by the PNC and the PPP. This is the time for listening to the political, economic and social needs of the people and fulfilling it. The AFC, with its coalition partners and the diaspora community is more capable than the PNC and PPP combined, to achieve this objective.
There is much evidence over the last 10 years to clearly demonstrate that the PPP under Jagdeo is a worse regime than the best of the PNC under Hoyte (1990-1992). However, the PNC (for rigged elections, etc) and the PPP (reckless corruption, continuous human rights abuses and limited respect for the rule of law, etc, all under the Jagdeo regime) must repent and owe the nation an apology for their abuse of the people. Thus I think Dr Jeffrey is unjustified in saying “there is no need for anyone to repent.” Wrong was done by both the PPP and the PNC at different periods of our nation’s history and thus they jointly shared the responsibility for the dysfunctional state we are today. Nothing else but an apology is in order to start the mental rehabilitation necessary to mould and build our nation.
If the 2006 electoral trend continues, neither the PPP nor the PNC may enjoy more than 51%. This clearly demonstrates that the people are onto these bogus leaders. The AFC on the other hand has only seen growth in its popularity across Guyana since 2006. The people recognized that the AFC has a firm foundation in liberal democracy. The AFC have seasoned and talented leaders who are ready, able and willing to genuinely serve the people. The AFC is the only party that has the democratic credentials and confidence to rotate its leadership without fear. I dare the PNC to select an Indian-Guyanese and the PPP to select an African-Guyanese as their respective presidential candidates. It will never happen because those with closet racial views dominate those parties.
As a result, the AFC has that sacred responsibility of re-educating the people to demand good governance; internationally accepted human rights standards; independent state institutions; the arrest of wanton corruption that is now common practice under the Jagdeo regime; and the rebuilding of our local government system. Most importantly, the AFC will have to rebuild the social cohesiveness of our society.
In summarizing, I have zero interest in revisiting the 1960s, but this collection of thoughts was designed to bury for good the attempt by those in the PNC to pressure the AFC into a hastily patched-up political harem. Now that the Guyanese public is much more aware why it is best for the AFC to lead a coalition of like-minded forces excluding the PNC and PPP, we can get back to focusing on the present moment – the excesses of the Jagdeo regime.
Yours faithfully,
Sasenarine Singh
