Dear Editor,
I refer to Mr A Archer’s letter titled, ‘Question has not been answered’ (SN, September 17), responding to my letter of September 13. The main theme of these exchanges from my point of view is to discuss my specific proposal that the PPP should elect an African leader and the PNC an Indian one, as a way forward to end the high levels of ethnic voting for ethnic parties. I have always argued that racial voting produces a very flawed democracy. It is precisely because of this that the PPP won the last four elections, and considering what we know of the current campaign strategies of all parties, I would say it is a foregone conclusion that the PPP will again win the 2011 election. And, it will also win future elections if nothing else changes in this political culture and society.
Mr Archer asks how my proposal will lead to “democracy, equal opportunity, freedom for all races and respect for rule of law”? My argument is a very simple one. These parties have been perceived as ethnic parties ever since their founding 55 years ago. Ethnic voting for ethnic parties is ingrained in our political culture. Imagine my chuckle of disbelief that Mr Archer would claim that though the PPP and PNC bases are primarily Indian and African, respectively, they have support from all racial groups which make them multiracial parties. There could hardly be a more false statement. I have done polling (with Mr Bisram) in August 1997, July 2009 and August 2010, and I found no evidence of cross-racial voting. Each day for 3 weeks, I polled 20-30 people in restaurants, mini-buses, stores, in GT, in villages, everywhere I went, and found no evidence of cross-racial voting. In fact the results are shocking. On many days of my recent visit it was 100 per cent Indians for the PPP; 90 per cent Africans for PNC. A significant number of African women declined to share their views with me or simply said they don’t vote. Mr Archer’s claim that PPP and PNC have multiracial support is not supported by the evidence.
Mr Archer criticised my visit to Mr Corbin on August 24 “to make a plea and simple argument” for him to take steps to transform his party into a genuine multiracial party. He thought I had a nerve to call on Mr Corbin to step down and not do the same to the PPP leader. Mr Archer seems to want to retain the status quo of the PNC as an African party, notwithstanding the fact that it received 50,000 fewer votes in 2006, and is now poised to slip further in 2011.
The PNC since 1992 has produced no platform and demonstrated no strategy about how to win support in a multiracial society. In fact, the only thing that passes for strategy in 2010 is to suck up to the AFC. Mr Corbin is basically saying, ‘I will not be the presidential candidate so please accept us into the so-called People’s Partnership,’ to which the AFC has said, ‘Thanks, but no thanks.’
Mr Archer says he is interested in “meaningful change.” Well, there will not be meaningful change until genuine democracy replaces the current “flawed democracy.” Until Messrs Corbin and Archer learn how to win Indian votes specifically, the PNC will remain in the political wilderness.
Once genuine democracy is achieved – and this will only happen when the ethnic parties take measures to end the practice of ethnic politics – the baton of power will always pass from one party to another (or a coalition of parties) every two or three election cycles. Are there any genuine democracies in the world where this is not the case?
What is this thing about the repeated personal attacks – a vendetta – on Dr Van West-Charles? A concerted and focused letter writing campaign involving several writers has sought to question and disparage the work of Mr Van West-Charles. I have never met him, but I have no illusions about the role he is playing to bring genuine reform to the PNC. He wants to create a new image of the PNC so that the party can pursue new strategies to broaden its support base and become relevant in a dramatically changed environment. It takes extreme courage and vision to challenge the entrenched ways of the PNC – the way they have been doing politics over the last 55 years. These many letters all contain the same arguments, and have a simple goal: resist reform and change. This is precisely what will make the PNC irrelevant.
These many writers have attacked Van West-Charles of playing a destabilizing role. This was exactly how old communist diehards in the former USSR saw Gorbachev. In Gorbachev’s view the world had changed, and all he wanted to do was to reform and prepare to rise to the new challenges ahead. I see Mr Van West-Charles as playing a Gorbachev role in reforming the PNC to make it relevant in a nation that is much different from the one it left behind in 1992.
One final note: August 2010 was not the first time I went to Congress Place to engage the leader in discussions about the need for the PNC to transform itself into a genuine multiracial party. I was there in July 1997 when for some reason, instead of meeting with Mr Desmond Hoyte, I met with a gentleman who had recently returned to Guyana with a degree from the United States. Both appointments were arranged by Amna Ali.
My attempts to obtain an appointment with a PPP leader were not successful. I have been calling on both parties for many years now to end their practice of ethnic politics. I am not anti-PNC or anti-PPP. I am calling on both parties to help end ethnic politics in Guyana.
Yours faithfully,
Mike Persaud
