After two decades it is difficult for a party like the PPP whose only apparent objective in politics is to retain power, to bamboozle anyone about its real motives. What is not so clear, however, are the mental processes by which the group as a whole and each of its individual members, justify that objective and the decisions which flow from it to themselves. Is it a case of a mass state of denial, or is it a more cynical exercise whereby everyone conspires to pretend to think one thing, when they really think another? Or is it that a myth has been constructed to provide a complete rationalization of behaviour which in normal circumstances would be regarded as indefensible? Individuals probably vary in their self-justifications, although some are a great deal more cynical than others, and there will still be a few – although very few nowadays – who will cling to the illusion that the ideals of the early party have not been abandoned and can still be achieved. For the most part, however, the party as a group operates with a myth as cover, although how far each individual member subscribes to that myth may vary.
The myth, of course, is founded on the oft repeated premise about the PNC and how it operated by foul means to achieve power and brought this country to the brink of economic disaster. Following from that, the myth says that the PPP must never allow that party back into office again because otherwise the same pattern will repeat itself. The fact that the PNCR is now subsumed under APNU really makes little difference, since the new grouping is dominated by the PNC and depends on the latter’s traditional constituency for its votes.
The AFC, however, is somewhat more problematic to accommodate within the framework of the myth, first because it is of recent creation since it was not around in PNC days, and more especially because there are PPP defectors within its ranks who caused a number of the governing party’s traditional constituents to vote for it in the 2011 election. That, however, has not deterred the PPP from going to some lengths to link the party and its leaders with violence and nefarious activities in an attempt to demonstrate that it is nothing more than an extension of the PNC, and like the latter should be excluded from office in the future.
It is not in dispute that it is under Hoyte’s government that the country’s economy turned around, and it is the Economic Recovery Programme from that period which made possible the growth figures achieved under the Cheddi Jagan administration. It is impossible, one would have thought, that any thinking person in the government and upper echelons of the ruling party does not know this, even if they will not admit it publicly. If they do not, it is evidence of either a serious case of ignorance or if not, self-delusion, since economists and others both in and out of the country have written on the subject, and the statistics have always been readily available. And without a doubt Finance Minister Asgar Ally knows it, as does former president, Mr Bharrat Jagdeo, who actually worked in the State Planning Secretariat under the Hoyte administration.
And as for the use of extra-legal methods to attain power by the PNC, the post-elections violence certainly gave sustenance to the myth between 1992 and 2001, and the events of 2003-04 fed into it further – although there has never been an inquiry into that period and the government itself has many serious questions to answer. In the elections of 2006 and 2011, however, there were no violent protests associated with opposition elements, although there was the unreasonable use of force employed by the police against non-violent marchers. The governing party has therefore stretched the fabric of the myth to accommodate every protest and incident of violence as evidence of the combined opposition’s tactics to gain power by illegal means. Never mind that through a free and fair election the latter gained a majority in the legislature and forced the PPP/C to govern as a minority, and never mind that anyone who thought that robbing a line of cars and beating people in Agricola would be a practical way to achieve power would have to be seriously intellectually compromised.
The PPP recites endlessly events at Linden and Agricola as having been incited by one or other of the two parliamentary opposition parties, despite the fact that in the case of the first, it knows full well that that had its origins in local anger, since APNU had agreed with the government to raise electricity rates there, and then had to reverse itself and scramble to bring itself into line with what Lindeners were demanding. In addition, there is no evidence that the AFC incited the violence in Agricola either; the allegation appears to be simply a way of bringing the AFC into the same frame as the PNC.
And as for fraudulent polls, there is no doubt that prior to 1992 the PNC rigged elections in order to acquire – and retain – power, in addition to which the party qua party has not helped its own image by refusing to acknowledge this publicly. However, despite the fact that international observers have signed off on all elections since 1992, still the PPP, led by President Ramotar, has made allegations that the PNC rigged again last year, and that the governing party really won the 2011poll and should not be a minority government. Exactly how APNU accomplished this extraordinary feat is not stated, neither is it explained why the main opposition party should go to all that trouble to rig and still lose. It seems that the PPP/C has not tried this claim out in the international arena, where presumably it knows it would receive short shrift; it is for internal consumption alone. Its purpose, therefore is clear: to mend a rent in the myth.
So what we have is a fairly shredded myth, which the PPP is trying desperately to hold together as a single piece. Do they really all believe in it still? Is that the cover too for all the foot-dragging on the Linden agreement which still has not been implemented after four months, and the difficulties over the television station for Region 10? At what point does the party, which after all is operating in an entirely different context from 1992, decide that perhaps in order to reconnect with its origins, it needs some honesty in its assessments; cynicism, or worse yet, hypocrisy, transmit themselves to the voting public which will operate accordingly. In the slippery world of politics, no party is completely honest (the PNC too has much work to do in that department, although there are some elements there which have understood what is necessary), but there has to be a reasonable measure of correspondence between explanation and reality.
If the governing party continues with its pretences, it can only do more damage to itself, and make it impossible for it to plan its future in any rational way. Worse yet, from its point of view, it will only alienate itself further from some of its supporters.