Dear Editor,
MP Gail Teixeira’s letter published in the Sunday Stabroek, November 10, 2019, captioned: `Betrayal of Walter Rodney falls at the feet of his trusted comrades’, is a mixture of political deception and fallacy. Her missive was in response to WPA’s statement in support of Mrs Pat Rodney’s call for the Guyana government to formally publish the COI report on Walter Rodney’s assassination.
In reading Teixeira’ s letter it was clear that it was in no way driven by any sincere concern for Rodney, but a desperate endeavour to put forward an erroneous defence for the PPP/C and Dr Cheddi Jagan’s inaction to establish a COI into the assassination of Rodney soon after coming to office in 1992. And this refusal was in spite of Jagan’s commitment to Shaka Rodney as a condition for him to end his protest fast calling on the new government to set up a commission of inquiry into his father’s assassination. Her reference to the following observation in the WPA statement confirms my judgement: “It is an undeniable fact that Rodney has been victimized both in life and death by the action and inactions of successive Guyanese governments.” In her futile attempt to absolve the PPP/C and Dr Jagan from their traitorous actions in this matter, she attempts to invoke parliamentary gymnastics as a smokescreen to deceive readers.
In dismantling Teixeira’s “smokescreen “, my contention is that if Dr Jagan on ascending to the presidency had moved to use his “presidential authority” to establish a COl, matters cited correctly or incorrectly by Teixeira would have been non issues. To the extent that they have relevance, this has to be seen in the context of the PPP/C and Dr Jagan’s lack of interest over the years in having an inquiry. Probably influenced by their desire to honour the agreement struck with former US President Jimmy Carter in 1992; that is, that no action should be taken against the PNCR for wrongdoings.
As subsequent events over a period of two decades have demonstrated, the PPP/C’s intention was not to bring closure to the Rodney assassination but instead to use it as a whip to beat the WPA and the PNCR, in essence, to divide and rule. Much of what was cited in Teixeira’s missive, chronicling events over the years, at times incorrectly is a continuation of the PPP/C tactics which the WPA has successfully neutralized over the years depriving the PPP/C of achieving its objectives. This has proven to be beneficial to the nation.
Having established the premise for this polemic I now address some specific issues raised by Teixeira. I begin with her testimony on Jagan/ Rodney relations and activism, “….For Dr Cheddi Jagan and the PPP/C leaders who had the greatest respect for Dr Walter Rodney both at the many meetings between the two parties and two leaders as well as on public platforms where both Dr Jagan and Dr Rodney spoke. The image of Cheddi Jagan and Dr Walter Rodney leading thousands of Guyanese, Indians and Blacks (MP Gail Teixeira, please note, we were Africans then and now) and other races, from Buxton to Kitty to the beat of the sounds of the Tassa and African drums, demanding free and fair elections and return to democracy, drove terror into the heart of the Burnham regime. This was the first mass popular demonstration of ethnic and political unity since the early 50s.”
I ask readers to form their own judgement to the above in the context of Dr Jagan’s subsequent remarks at public meetings, after the assassination of Walter Rodney where he triumphantly and callously told the audience that “Rodney promised the Guyanese people a Christmas present – instead, he gives them his head”. This is irrefutable evidence of the PPP/C victimising Rodney in death while the party was in opposition. Not a long cry from doing the same when in government. Where is the revolutionary and comradely solidarity that Gail speaks about? I have never seen or heard of any self-criticism by Dr Jagan or the PPP/C Leadership on this insensitive abuse of Rodney and his family. “Comrade Teixeira” I and the nation awaits your response on this matter.
I now point readers to another self-serving pronouncement by Teixeira: “By the 2011 election, the APNU was formed including the WPA; this time it was forced to make a concession that the party had been stockpiling arms just prior to Rodney ‘s death. This was a most shameless betrayal, and all for one seat within the APNU.” Here again, Teixeira is being her “old PPP self” – the tiger can’t change her stripes. She claims that the WPA was forced to make a concession, that the party was stockpiling arms. These are her words, not the WPA or I who gave evidence at the COl that the party had acquired some small arms for self-defence. The truth of the matter is that the WPA did not as a collective participate in the COl but individual leaders and members did so. For Gail to conclude that my admission that the WPA had weapons was the result of the PNCR’s demand for the party to do so as a condition for being in the APNU is political insanity of the highest order.
I repeat for the benefit of readers what I said in my opening remarks in the witness box in the Rodney COl. I pointed out that this was the first occasion that the WPA Executive had failed to agree on how to deal with a matter relating to the Walter Rodney assassination. I also said that the Executive agreed that members who wanted to take part in the inquiry should do so. The only stipulation was that they tell the truth. It was the consensus that we were more likely to achieve our goal of getting justice for Walter if we were truthful and in doing so avoid contradictions. And in the end, our approach won the day. So, Gail, your preposterous idea that WPA was forced to make concessions is a fallacy of your mind.
Ms Teixeira also stated: “ … the Working People’s Alliance leadership, whilst affirming its ‘Rodneyite’ credentials had cultivated a back – to – back relationship of collaborating with the PNC bureaucracy”.
The public record will show that WPA had stated in the early 1990s before the breakup of the Patriotic Coalition for Democracy( PCD) that if the PNC agreed to free and fair election and accept the results of those elections we will see their action as a profound development and welcome them to the democratic fold. It is important to note that at the time neither Dr Jagan nor anyone in the PPP leadership spoke out against the party’s position. And for the obvious reason, they saw it as being beneficial to the PPP winning the elections.
The final point that is worthy of response is Teixeira’s contention why the PCD failed to reach agreement on an electoral alliance to contest the 1992 elections. She states in her letter: “ … The WPA’s reluctance to support Dr Cheddi Jagan and the PPP as a presidential candidate (was) because of his ideology and race.” In those negotiations, the WPA never made Jagan’s ideology an issue for the obvious reason that we were Marxist. It was the DLM that was strong on what they called the ideological problematic. And on the question of Jagan’s race, we never made it an issue. Our point was that over the years Jagan had developed an antagonistic political relationship with the African community to the point of that community fearing his politics. And we also had to bear in mind an African dominated military. Pertinent to this aspect of the debate is the fact that the WPA had changed its opposition to Dr Jagan’s presidency, so the claim that is was the WPA objection to Jagan’s candidacy that was the problem is far from the truth. It was the failure of the parties to agree on a formula for representation in the parliament and government. And this failure rests with the PPP’s callous treatment to the smaller parties. On every occasion, after the talks resumed the PPP reduced the allocations to the other parties. In short, their attitude was the longer you take to agree the less you get. After the WPA walked away the DLM and others continued the negotiations in a futile attempt to get the PPP to be reasonable.
Some years ago in a polemic with either a PPP/C or an Indian rights activist on why the PCD did not reach an agreement I pointed to Jagan’s visit to Washington and his meeting with State Department officials who informed him of the new US policy of no opposition to him and his party. Armed with this assurance Jagan had no need for the PCD. I also pointed out that while the PCD negotiations were taking place Jagan was having secret talks with the recently formed Guard civic movement of which Samuel Hinds was a member.
I end this polemic by reiterating the call I made in the above-mentioned letter for Gail Teixeira who was the PCD secretary and the custodian of the organization’s records to make public the minutes of the PCD negotiations. I had also posed the question to Gail and the PPP leadership, was Jagan’s rapprochement with the US, his historic enemy, a betrayal? The nation deserves to have your answers to these matters.
Yours faithfully,
Tacuma Ogunseye
