Dear Editor,
None, we are told, is more touching than a sinner in the travails of his repentance.
It is with a real shiver of anticipation that we think of the day when the PNC, with or without a word like “Reform” appended to its name, will declare loud and tearful “Yes, we did rig elections. Yes we did `fix’ the overseas vote. We admit it all and throw our former selves at the mercy of the court of…public opinion.” Given our current circumstances, those of the faithful who have not yet forgiven the worn and tired sinners of the former ruling party would be certain, almost to the last man, to regard with an extraordinary clemency, the crimes and misdemeanours packed in small letters on the long indictment sheet the party has stapled to its back. “Those of the faithful,” one writes, for there are all those interested parties wishing to see the PNC, a group which has constantly mutated over time, imprisoned in the negative image from its bad days.
We were always puzzled as to why the PNC so steadfastly hews to the falsehood that its hands were clean when it came to rigging. Or hid behind the wall of silence.
Perhaps there is no statute of limitations and perpetrators could yet find themselves facing the judges. Or it could be hubris. Or it could be the self-delusion of the hope that some are still fooled. Or terror at the idea of lending fresh fuel to the PPP propaganda machine. But whatever the case, there is no further use in pretending that the outfit so enjoyed popular support in the past that the announced election results had a relationship with reality.
There would be, to return to the image of the sinner, a Judgement. In which the party, dragged before the Seat, hears with drooping heart the thunderous question as the P I starts.
“Where were you on the night of the twenty fourth?”
To which, in all frankness the concerned would be heard to reply “Stuffing ballot boxes at Camp (address provided) M’Lud.”
And as the trial proceeds to the “What have you to say for yourselves?”, a series of defences ought to be prepared.
Along the lines of “We were Marxist/ Leninists at the time. Or so we told ourselves.
And that philosophy insists that you lead, in full paramountcy, at all times and in all places and circumstances. We assured ourselves of leadership” Or “We were working to save the race, Sir as you may recall black people were in a bad way”. Or “The whole thing was about protecting the nation from the worst possible alternatives in the boys over there from the PPP, then those others operating under the name and style of ‘WPA’”. Or “The Americans made us do it.”
Before casting itself at the mercy of that court the PNC would have to plead “in mitigation” that when the global geopolitical situation changed it released its hold on power, even at the expense of its own well-being and that of its followers, who were to discover themselves still in the wilderness, as they yet claim to be today.
A good question for a class on Ethics. Does voting for a party with a criminal past (or present) cause us to share the collective guilt?
Our politicians clearly no longer subscribe to the adage “confession is good for the soul.” The PPP delights in the illusion that the Roger Khan incident cannot be pinned to it. The WPA pretends still that it was not preparing an armed insurrection. Each motivated by a higher morality than it ascribes to the PNC we suppose.
Brig (ret’d) David Granger has been questioned about the riggings. He claims, correctly we could be certain, having no personal knowledge or involvement. And therefore unable to furnish proof. Perhaps the candidate was like most of us and most of the members of the PNC anyway. You heard things, but never saw it. But it would be disingenuous to insist that the PNC never committed the act.
Similarly, President Jagdeo, whom we witnessed seized of the Spirit and sharing reciprocal apologies with Raphael Trotman during a religious meeting, could not be expected any time soon to tell all about the Roger Khan incident.
Our politicians carefully limit their religiosity to the pieties of their private life and the de rigueur press release at Phagwah, Eid or Easter. It takes a particular daring or cynicism to be read reminding voters to remember the true meaning of Christmas or Youman Nabi. But we get our dose from our politicians anyway. It is a good tradition that we have, and a certain comfort is had in reading the exhortations. Doubtless the political parties from which the reminders emanate know, deep down in their hearts, that we are mostly lost anyway, our own collective religiosity proof to all reform under the carapace of petty prejudices and racisms that encase us.
The PNC, pioneer in so many ways, should go beyond the admission of “mistakes” that Mr. Corbin made and open itself to discussion of the political realities of its tenure, including the rigging. But it may wish to choose the time and occasion to do so.
For the truth is that the party, in the geopolitics of the times, had before it only two choices- to sink with the PPP in the clamour of its communism or to hold the country and work with the early fifties pre-split PPP agenda. It did the latter, and ended up being pressured by the Americans anyway. Ended up pleasing no one. It would be encouraging to see the party cast off its reticence about these realities.
Yours faithfully,
Abu Bakr
