Dear Editor,
In berating the coalition platform of the APNU+AFC Bharrat Jagdeo (past and apparently current President better known for his vow of poverty) and other government and PPP spokespersons isolated the PNC from the opposition APNU+AFC coalition and focused on its past. Apart from the subtle and not so subtle appeal to race in that tactic, the PPP is entirely dishonest with the facts, especially where it comes to the search for national unity, something that they seem not to be interested in at any level.
From the 1960s all the way up to 1992 the PPP has sought accommodation on coalition or what is called ‘national front government.’ Indeed, when in opposition they were fervent defenders and proponents of the goal, especially with, wait for it, the PNC!
In 1966, after a world tour Cheddi Jagan told the Guyana Star newspaper that it was his view that a “coalition between the broad mass of the people” predominantly represented in the PNC and PPP was “the best way out” for Guyana.
In 1975 Rickey Singh wrote a piece titled ‘Burnham and Jagan agree on “peace plan”’ arising out of meetings between the two parties.
In 1976 the PPP held at least three unity meetings with representatives of the PNC including then Prime Minister Forbes Burnham. At least one of these meetings was held at Belfield House, the home of Burnham. They even called the proposal for national unity at one point the “fatherland front.”
In 1977 the PPP’s proposal for a “national patriotic front government” was criticized by the WPA because it was limited to parties who espoused a “socialist oriented programme.” It was also rejected by the PNC on this occasion.
This was followed in the 1980s with several assertions from the PPP on national unity and the need to protect socialist principles (this was the pre-1992 PPP when socialism and social equality was a non-negotiable province of the PPP’s ideological goals).
As Ralph Ramkarran recently indicated, the PPP in 1985 held talks with the PNC and was even “prepared to sacrifice the presidency in talks initiated by the PNC.”
Then 1992 happened. The PPP were elected to office and especially from 1997 any semblance of broad coalition or inclusion for national unity was either rejected or avoided like the plague. Instead the PPP’s ‘national unity’ and power-sharing formula was inscribed in the patently pathetic ‘Civic’ with Prime Minister Sam Hinds, who, with his Civic cap has never uttered one public word of criticism or apology about the state and party to which his ‘Civic’ was attached. And there was plenty to criticise. Years later, in his passing out parade at Kitty, garland and PPP colours in hand, there is still no indication of what Civic meant in terms of national unity. We already see Hinds’ Civic heir Elisabeth Harper’s persona, cap and colours similarly inscribed in servile obedience to the PPP top brass.
Today, we witness the utter arrogance and disdain for even a semblance of national unity by the PPP government and state. And the brave and visionary decision of APNU+AFC to form a coalition to promote the very ideals once trumpeted by the PPP is treated with fear and hatred.
What is different from the PPP which pressed for national unity and national governance with the PNC in the past and now? Power. Naked power and the need to present and stoke the old bogey of the PNC to its supporters to inspire fear about the new coalition.
Under President Jagdeo, amidst the poverty, economic dislocation, corruption, killings of civilians by state and phantom squads, and social and cultural decline – the PPP arrogantly turned bribery into their form of national unity while maintaining every single vestige of power offered from the 1980 constitution. They wanted even more power and saw the opposition result in 2011 not as a chance to promote national unity and power-sharing but as something to be challenged, derailed and destroyed. Now, as new elections approach and Guyana aches for national unity, the PPP platform rhetoric returns to a racially motivated and selective history, one that ignores even their own past role in the search for coalition and unity with people and organizations they currently castigate. As the old saying goes, “Those whom the gods wish to destroy they first make mad.”
Yours faithfully,
Nigel Westmaas
