Dear Editor,
Referring to the editorial titled, “History Cam-paign” (SN April 19, 2015), kindly permit the following comments. Said editorial addressed history, but no dispute exists regarding history per se; rather, the AFC made the relevancy of PNC history to voters an issue.
Importantly, the editorial neither stated nor queried what is the PNC’s position on PNC history. Instead, it said the coalition “has no need to go back to a pre-1992 era” and that “it has the recent past to focus on.” With respect, this is not what the PNC has said.
Let us therefore turn to something which has been largely missing from this 2015 campaign, and your editorial. Said another way, let us turn to the “Declaration of Vreed en Hoop,” written in 2012 by the presidential candidate and new PNC leader, Brigadier (ret.) David Granger.
In it, Mr. Granger sets down the critical role of PNC history in official PNC business and ideology. Nothing as grand as Mr. Forbes Burnham’s “Declaration of Sophia,” it is Mr. Granger’s initial attempt to chart a new road for the PNC; and in it, PNC history looms large as a beacon.
Captured subtly in a handful of words, hidden in a larger quote, Mr. Granger proclaimed: “[T]he experiences of our history…have refined and revived our Party’s ideology.”
Indeed, Mr. Granger made it a point to remind PNC members or new party personnel of the “many accomplishments of the PNC in government” (note, not PNC in opposition or the recent post-1992 PNC). Further, he instructed today’s PNC members to feel “proud and not allow the prejudicial views of others make them ashamed to speak out.”
So far, the new PNC personnel have been quiet on the issue of PNC history. Be that as it may, voters now know what is PNC policy regarding PNC history. The PNC does not see itself as an abstract entity enslaved by its past. Instead, it sees itself as existing step-by-step with its history.
Reading this may surprise many coalition supporters, especially AFC supporters. Failure to raise questions about the true intentions of the PNC is a mistake for them to make. But others who ask are correct to do so because they point to official PNC edict and ideology. It explains why the PNC itself has its finger on its lips, and eyes on the clock.
Further, because PNC history has had a catastrophic influence on Guyanese life, good sense requires that any party or person running for office, with an ideology steeped in the era of Burnham, be vetted or questioned thoroughly. Winning an elections is one thing; what happens after is another.
Finally, the fact that other coalition leaders themselves have struggled in their public positions regarding PNC history, making statements (Dr. Roopnaraine refers to “dark days”) that are the opposite to what Mr. Granger has said, underscores the need for voters to take guard against an era some try to downplay, simply because it occurred many years ago.
Indeed, while Mr. Granger embraces PNC history, Mr. Ramjattan suggests voters move beyond it, that he would not be enslaved by it or some of its aspects, statements suggesting that perhaps he did not read or consider the “Declaration of Vreed en Hoop” before uniting with APNU. And while Dr. Roopnaraine is willing to “let Mr. Burnham rest in peace,” the PNC seems very keen on resurrecting him, if the circumstance permits.
Yours faithfully,
Rakesh Rampertab
