Dear Editor,
The PPP/C elite has been unrelentingly critical of the positions taken by the opposition in the matter of the Anti-Money Laundering and Coun-tering of Terrorism (Amendment) legislation (AML/CFT). The PPP/C rulers claim that there is no need for the APNU to examine the bill since the bill satisfies the requirements of the Caribbean Financial Action Task Force.
The PPP/C also attacked the AFC for linking the AFC’s support for AML/CFT, to the establishment of the constitutionally mandated Public Procurement Commission.
Editor, the PPP/C brought this state of affairs on themselves. Indeed, the opposition parties could not possibly have adopted any other position given the new Jagdeoite philosophy of the PPP/C.
Since Mr Jagdeo ascended to the Presidency, the PPP/C has been steadily and progressively moving away from its working class roots. Its policies and practices have become increasingly elitist and upper class. That elitism has now reached its ultimate pinnacle.
Grandiose projects that benefit the wealthy elite; the construction of mansions for ministers and their friends; the acquisition of duty-free luxury vehicles for those in the ruling party; and the construction of exclusive housing developments for the high and mighty ‒ all prove this new, status-based, exclusive, high-falutin’ policy of elitism.
In fact Mr Jagdeo himself articulated this new ethos when he recently admonished ordinary Guyanese not to complain of the small things, like potholes in the roads and clogged drains. I need not even mention his derogatory characterisation of Mr Ramon Gaskin as a bicycle shop owner in reference to Mr Gaskin’s modest business.
Editor, are these the words and actions of a working class party?
The ignoring of the poor and the neglect of depressed areas like Plastic City, are yet more evidence of the PPP/C’s new elitist philosophy.
According to Karl Marx, the hero of the communist PPP/C, the relationship between the workers and the oppressors is necessarily antagonistic. Therefore, the PPP/C, having adopted the role of oppressors, have a necessarily antagonistic relationship with the working class, which happens to be the vast majority of Guyanese.
It follows that the APNU and the AFC, by default and through the demands of their respective constituents, have become the champions of the working class and other poor Guyanese. Is it any wonder that the opposition will now try to get the best possible deal for those they represent?
In this light the APNU’s position is totally understandable: They want the best possible AML/CFT bill that will benefit Guyanese; not just a bill that will meet the minimum requirements of an international body.
In the same way, the AFC want a comprehensive legislative framework that will permit the prosecution of the elite oppressors who may be plundering the treasury or committing other financial crimes.
In conclusion, the PPP/C, having adopted a philosophy of elitism and oppressive autocratic rule, have caused the opposition to react by doing their best to represent the masses of suffering Guyanese.
The positions of the opposition entities, the APNU and the AFC, are therefore totally understandable and justified in Guyana’s new reality of elitist oppression.
Yours faithfully,
Mark DaCosta
