Dear Editor,
As a commissioner of Gecom, it is my practice to stay clear of the partisan silly season exchanges of the politicians. However, the recent viewpoint of Dr Prem Misir on Mr Nagamootoo’s ‘relevance of a unity government now’ cannot go unheeded, since it rubbishes the country’s history at the taxpayers’ expense.
Dr Misir attempts to dismiss Mr Nagamootoo’s portrayal of the alliance to Dr Cheddi Jagan’s previous call for a coalition, as opportunistic and deceptive. His main contention is that the PNC of 1964 rejected such an opportunity and that having morphed into APNU, it is now joining with the opportunistic AFC to deceive the populace about unity while its only objective is to acquire power and to perpetuate the politics the PNC, in whichever form, has practised all the years.
This contention rubbishes the history of the calls for coalition/national unity in the past.
First, it does not acknowledge three other attempts between the ’70s and the ’80s, all of which the PPP embraced while in opposition, one of which saw the sides reaching agreement only to be shattered by Mrs Janet Jagan’s declaration of mistrust on her part, and lack of sincerity on Mr Burnham’s part. Dr Misir sought to mislead the viewers on the factual history and created a false premise for his analysis and conclusions.
Further to that, he completely distorts the following historical facts.
- The British did not impose PR on British Guiana (BG). Dr Jagan agreed that Duncan Sandys should resolve the deadlock between the parties on an appropriate electorate system for BG.
- The elections of 1964 produced similar results to the previous elections. All that the British and Americans were accused of doing in collusion with the PNC had no impact on the voting pattern and the results of the elections. In fact, those elections resulted in the PPP
acquiring a larger percentage of votes that in the immediate past elections.
- The Governor’s call for the PNC-UF coalition to form the government was based on the legal provisions for proportional representation, which resulted from Duncan Sandys being bequeathed the authority to determine an appropriate electoral system for BG, as of 1964.
- The illogicality of a coalition with the PPP in 1964 was obvious. The two parties had ideological differences. The PPP’s ideological stance was well known to be abhorrent to the West, at the peak of the Cold War, and a deterrent to the granting of independence to BG. There was no strategic benefit to be derived by BG, the colony, in its struggle for independence, at that time, from such an alliance.
- Subsequent attempts at, and agreements on, coalition were fostered in an independent Guyana and in a Guyana where the struggle had been advanced past the attainment of independence, and the parties (PPP and PNC) had gravitated toward similar ideological positions.
A distortion of our history will only inhibit the gullible from seeking real solutions and enhance the chances of the revisionists of misguiding the citizens.
Yours faithfully,
Vincent Alexander
Chairman
Forbes Burnham Foundation
