Dear Editor,
I began my critique of Mr M Maxwell’s ‘Truth has no political party’ (SN, December 26, 2010) with the following statement: “Every so often one comes upon a letter that is so ill-conceived and littered with misconceptions that one can only ascribe untoward designs to its author. Yet, notwithstanding their general irrelevance and incoherence, such items tend to use commonplace idioms that resonate with some readers to provide an illusion of meaningfulness” (‘Ralph Ramkarran is the best PPP/C candidate for the presidency’ SN, January 1). Mr Maxwell has run true to form with ‘Jeffrey’s paradigm of moral convenience is exactly the kind of solution that has left us suffering’ (SN, January 4).
After the usual trite personal invective, this is what he deduced from what I said: “Jeffrey’s position is that because many will vote for the PPP the issue of the unsuitability of any of its presidential candidates is pointless.”
Now, what should concern us is not that the above statement shows a total lack of comprehension of what I said – everyone makes mistakes – but that someone who seeks to influence the Guyanese public could possibly conceive of and give public voice to such an inanity! How on earth could anyone think that the suitability or otherwise of presidential candidates is pointless? That Mr Maxwell has not simply missed the point but has presented such an absurd construction leads me to believe that further discussion would be pointless. Let me, however, for Mr Maxwell’s edification, set out in simple terms what I meant and then consider a single point.
In a nutshell, my point was that his position is sterile because (unconsciously I believe) he set criteria for rejecting Mr Ramkarran (his silence notwithstanding the alleged atrocities committed by the PPP/C) that if applied across the board would result in the rejection of not only all the PPP candidates but virtually all the candidates from all the other parties! Operational organizations demand a level of loyalty and do not allow their leaders to ‘wash their dirty linen in public.’ As I stated: “Ralph Ramkarran does not publicly attack the PPP/C for similar reasons that the PNC leaders did not publicly attack the PNC,” and I know of no political organization in Guyana that would allow such latitude.
Indeed, this kind of organizational requirement has gone beyond moral convenience and is now in the realm of custom and law. When you join an organization you are expected to abide by its rules or to leave or face expulsion. Indeed, accepting the case of Deng Xiaoping makes my point that party insiders are not usually silent, but perhaps Mr Maxwell has evidence of Deng publicly criticizing Mao Zedong and the Communist Party of China before he and his people’s ascension to office.
Mr Maxwell’s entire presentation is a random stringing together of isolated facts and moral platitudes to arrive at some very questionable conclusions. One alarming statement caught my eye: “Hoyte had no choice.” There is always choice. Mr Ramkarran and others could have chosen to leave or be booted out of their party. But, more to the point, does he actually believe that what happened before, during and after the 1992 elections would have been the same had Mr Hamilton Green been president?
Guyana is not in this mess because Guyanese have a different or lower level or morality, political or otherwise, than anyone else. We are here because of the peculiar nature of our society and our reluctance to risk innovative solutions. The actual outcome of the intervening political process further complicates the possibilities of resolution. And less than half-baked interventions, such as Mr Maxwell’s, threaten to make the task of transformation much more difficult.
Yours faithfully,
Henry B Jeffrey
