Dear Editor,
In Guyana we are combating the PPP race-based propaganda that it uses to distract from its bad record of governance in the post-1997 period in its effort to remain in power. As such, while we are fully cognisant of all the ills of the PNC, we present an objective view of the period for the simple purpose of showing that not all was bad in that period as the PPP would want the population to believe. The PPP has also given us more than 20 years to evaluate their performance which the people can judge for themselves. The PPP has also had periods of good governance, but the post-Jagan period is a different story.
In our first letter, we examined the presidency of Desmond Hoyte which we likened to an apology for the wrongs in the period that preceded, notwithstanding the fact that he was part of the preceding period and he resisted and delayed free and fair elections. The fact remains, unlike any other leader in our post-Independence history, he responded to what the majority of the people wanted. He responded to the banning of food items, he responded to the security situation and jailed many of the criminals associated with the House of Israel which the PPP has embraced and forgiven today, he reached out to Indians so much so that he was dubbed Desmond Persaud, and he tried to deal with corruption, among other things, all in an effort towards winning an election fairly. So even if he appeared resistant to free and fair elections, he must have known he would accede to it.
All the other leaders did what they wanted, either by securing themselves with fraudulent elections or through an ethnic majority. This included Dr Jagan, who did not keep his promises of reforming the constitution, of forming a broad-based government that many thought would include persons from the opposition (Dr Clive Thomas, for example), and reforming the security forces. Dr Jagan had famously asked Dr Yesu Persaud when pressed on the issue of constitutional reform in 1993, if he (Dr Persaud) thought he (Dr Jagan) was a dictator, and the rest is history. In that same year, Khemraj Ramjattan was ordered to face a disciplinary committee at Freedom House for pressing the issue of security sector reform. Mr Ramjattan was particularly berated for insisting that Laurie Lewis must go, the same Laurie Lewis whose name has been called in the Rodney Commission of Inquiry. In 2006 the PPP committed its own electoral fraud and stole the AFC’s seat which it won fair and square in Linden. Similar electoral impropriety was attempted in 2011, with bottom house polling stations and fuzzy maths at Gecom, all of which is well documented.
We went on to examine the issue of Hamilton Green, illustrating how the PPP has starved and frustrated the Mayor and City Council of Georgetown in order to perpetuate the myth that nothing good can come from the rule of the PNC. It is ironic that much of the rest of the country for which the PPP councils have direct responsibility are in a bad shape or even worse condition than Georgetown. Yet some people do not recognise that fact and go on to say that Green is a representation of the nastiness of all Guyana, falling for, or deliberately perpetuating PPP propaganda. The fact is that the PPP preferred Hamilton Green as Mayor as opposed to the prospect of the PNC winning Georgetown.
We examined the ongoing Commission of Inquiry (CoI) into the killing of Dr Walter Rodney, and have illustrated that the PPP’s intent is not to ascertain the truth, but again, to engage in race-based propaganda. If the PPP had wanted the truth to come out they would have made every effort to get Gregory Smith to testify when he was alive. All the French wanted at the time, was an assurance that Smith would not face prosecution with the prospect of execution. That effort was not made for reasons only known to the PPP. We clearly illustrated that the CoI was a cruel joke with the incredulous lack of recall by Captain Gerry Gouveia (who is no geriatric) on who exactly he transported and who gave him the order. That information even thirty-four years later, could have led to a conclusive outcome of this CoI. We hope that Captain Gouveia is questioned once more in the future, and that closure can finally be had by the Rodney family.
We must respond to put to rest the accusation that by our omission of Forbes Burnham when we examined Desmond Hoyte’s rule, that we implied Burnham’s rule was a total failure. In no way perfect, most of Guyana received free education even though we had to look at Burnham’s face on every free exercise book. One of us was even in the top ten of the then Common Entrance exam in 1982, relying solely on what was taught in the formal classroom. Burnham built the Linden, Corentyne, East Coast, East Bank, West Coast, West Bank Demerara Highways. He built the Canje Bridge and the Demerara Harbour Bridge that still stands way beyond its expected lifetime, and he built the Timehri Airport from scratch. Burnham established The New Building Society (NBS) and The National Insurance Scheme (NIS) which the PPP has destroyed. Before the economy tanked and foreign exchange became scarce, Guyana had a fairly promising industrial sector making dairy products, radios, refrigerators, gas stoves, small ships, clay products and a fabricated general purpose vehicle (Tapir), etc.
Burnham’s main negatives were his destruction of political and economic institutions that are essential for a well-functioning economy to evolve. It will take a significant research effort to pronounce on whether Burnham’s net contribution is negative or positive. In answering this question one will need to control for the oil price shocks of the 1970s, political resistance from the PPP and critical support of the PPP for a communist dreamland in order to isolate Burnham’s pure contribution to the society. Indeed, one of us is writing a book – From Party Paramountcy to Elected Oligarchy: A Case Study in Underdevelopment – examining why Guyana is poor and will remain poor unless radical changes are made to build up sound political and economic institutions. Suffice to say, our generation does not attach sentimental and mawkish value to the independence leaders. We feel aspects of Burnham’s vision are still relevant, but the method of implementation has to be significantly better and inclusive.
Yours faithfully,
Tarron Khemraj
Gerhard Ramsaroop