Dear Editor,
What the PPP should have done when Mr Ramkarran wrote about corruption, was to have trumpeted its agreement with him, affirmed that the Cabinet, Executive Committee and Office of the President recognised its own concerns and determination in Mr Ramkarran’s statements, and just let the matter die out. The PPP should have recognised that the credibility it still has left is due to the presence of persons like the former Speaker. He enjoys support and empathy across race and class lines.
He was considered by many, this writer included, the best PPP candidate for the presidency during the last elections. His integrity was unquestioned at a time when, at the polls, the perception of the party would cost it votes and throw it into the dark well of confusion it now insists on descending. But the problem, to my mind, preceded the corruption articles. There was the matter of Mr Ramkarran’s public disagreement with Dr Luncheon over their recollections of the tenor and results of a party executive meeting. There must have been, over the last seven months, incidents of estrangement that are not known to us, but which would have affected relations on both sides. In addition, the public relations licking that the party has taken these past months, much of it related to questions of perceived corruption or inefficiency, would have rendered it sensitive to certain issues. The comments by Ramesh Dookhoo of the Private Sector on the corruption issue, reported recently in the papers, were no less probing and firm than Mr Ramkarran’s. So the matter may finally rest not on what is said (as even Mr Ramotar speaks about corruption) but who said it, and who feels attacked and what the motives of the critic are thought to be. Mr. Ramkarran’s retreat from or repudiation of the PPP as currently configured, is distressing for several reasons. Among them being the retirement from our political process of a fund of expertise and historical knowledge that becomes rare with the historical process of generational change. Mr Trotman, the current speaker, in an initiative to involve experienced Guyanese parliamentarians who have retired, has shown appreciation of the value of this type of knowledge. Another reason among them is that the PPP at this time needs to retain within its leadership and ranks persons with the authority and standing of Mr Ramkarran’s ilk.
Many of the current leaders have so bad an image that counter-weight becomes essential to what is seen as a listing ship. Also, the symbolic wealth of the Ramkarran presence, his pedigree as testimony of continuity of commitment and stability in the party, is not to be ignored. The good thing is that the ex-speaker neither named nor accused anyone in his anti-corruption statements. Unlike the PNC dissidents openly against Mr. Robert Corbin a few years ago, Ralph Ramkarran could be said to be attacking a phenomenon that affects all, supporters and adversaries alike, and that is scorned by all. Well, almost. It would be good for the PPP, having lost Ramjattan and Nagamootoo (and with them some votes) to approach this matter with the principle for which it was respected in the past -appeasement and reconciliation. For while Dr. Jagan lost a lot of supporters during the party’s history, including some prominent people who simply crossed the floor to the PNC government side, I do not recall any report of the kind of abuse to which Mr Ramkarran was apparently subjected. I have always known that the party is not made up of mindless robots but personalities who express their opinions and often take contradictory positions. The PPP was never a monolithic bloc. Disagreements there must have been. Internally. But it would not be good for it to appear that the PPP is virtually cussing out of its leadership a longstanding and loyal pillar for, of all things, criticism of corruption. Which is what public perception of the resignation will turn out to be. Engaging Mr Ramkarran, as the party has publicly stated it would do, has to lead to some reconciliation. To some assurance that the party has taken on board concerns about clean government. And that it renews itself to continue to serve. None benefit from a weakened party of any of the three in parliament. The PPP has to do this as an obligation to its supporters for whom moments such as these could be uncomfortable.
Yours faithfully,
Abu Bakr
