Dear Editor,
Member of the PPP’s Central Com-mittee and Executive Committee, Presi-dent Jagdeo, at a press conference said: “But more importantly, there is a danger we have always been worried that people could promise other things to get them to vote for them and this is the danger of secret balloting…”
This view is an insult to the large majority of the Central Committee (CC) of the PPP in terms of what would influence the way in which they would vote in order to choose the presidential candidate for the PPP/C. To claim that a member of the party’s CC would be influenced by a promise of a position in the future administration is a double tragedy of poor knowledge and poor logic.
It is a lack of knowledge, partly excusable by distance from the arena, of the heroic roles of many dynamic fighters who placed their lives on the line even when the only offer of a position was in the jail or in the cemetery.
It is also an upturning of logic to suggest that someone would be influenced by the offer of a position to reject their own conviction if there is a secret ballot. Rather would it not be more logical that someone would be reluctant to vote according to their conviction if their choice has to be expressed in full view of a power house who has deliberately demonstrated undisguised pleasure in swinging the axe against those who are considered to be defiant?
The issue of the secret ballot arises only if there is the need for a vote to be taken. As such, there is no precedence of any vote having to be taken in order to choose the presidential candidate for the PPP or the PPP-Civic.
In 1980, 1985 and 1992, it was Cheddi Jagan unopposed. In 2001 and 2006, it was Bharrat Jagdeo unopposed. In between, in 1997, it is true that more than one name was suggested. But this was done in the context of varying tactical considerations. It was eventually resolv-ed by a unanimous acceptance of a novel arrangement. No vote was required.
So there is no history of a previous contest for the position of presidential candidate that required a vote to be taken.
What any organisation would prefer is a situation where a choice of a candidate for any major position can be made through a process of thorough evaluations of the various options and a unanimous identification of the best option with the others under consideration voluntarily withdrawing.
This is what has happened before for the PPP-C and obviously would be the preferred way forward.
But in the course of time, organisations and processes often find themselves with new realities. The approach to finding solutions must therefore cater for varying possibilities. Among such possibilities is the inability to again realize a unanimous choice and the need therefore to have a vote.
If it reaches that stage, then the method can be no other than the secret ballot. A voter has the right to secrecy. It is not a privilege but a right.
The press conference was the forum for an attack also on those whom the President considers to be supportive of a candidate other than his preference. He said “Now, some people, I think they do the mathematics and they see the odds may not be in their favour so they are arguing for a new process and I suspect that if you have the new process and they lose there again they would find some other reason, the Corbin syndrome…”
How familiar. When national elections were rigged from 1968 to 1985, the riggers used to create the impression before the elections that the PPP was heading for a massive defeat and accused the PPP of inventing excuses upfront.
History has recorded that when the secret ballot was fortified in 1992 by the long-denied, finally-conceded counting of the votes at the place of poll, the results were a true reflection of the will of the people and proved that the “excuses” attributed to the PPP were indeed valid concerns.
Those who seek to paint a picture that those who have valid concerns “would find some other reason, the Corbin syndrome…” are very much guilty of the Burnham syndrome.
Yours faithfully,
Navin Chandarpal
