Early in the morning of June 4, 1989, Chinese troops rolled into Tiananmen Square in Beijing, and crushed a rising tide of students’ protests which had begun a few weeks earlier in mid-April. The termination exercise of the Tianan-men Square Protests (also called the Fourth June Incident) produced an unknown number of casualties and wounded, the final number of which, which has always been the subject of intense debate between the Chinese Government and international observers.
The tragic event has been immortalized by one simple photograph; that of a lone man facing off with army tanks The single protestor stood directly in front of a column of tanks, shifting from side to side, to subvert the forward movement of the lead tank. This confrontation occurred on the morning of June 5, the day after the ‘clearing’ of the square, as the tanks were leaving the scene of the ‘massacre’. The man was eventually pulled aside by a group of persons. The Tank Man, the name attached to the lone protestor (after the video footage of the incident was smuggled out of China), remains unidentified to this day, while his fate remains unknown.
Here in Guyana, our version of the Tank Man has emerged during the Machiavellian manoeuvres of the APNU+AFC coalition who are defiantly clinging to power. Our Tank Man, has appeared from the unlikeliest of places, from within the halls of power. His name is Dominic Gaskin, and he is the former Minister of Business, who, as the holder of dual citizenship, had to relinquish his seat in the National Assembly following the decision of the courts. He is also the son-in-law of David Granger, the leader of the coalition. Mr Gaskin, a prominent member of the AFC party, which he has served as treasurer, has chosen to adopt a polar position to that of most of his former cabinet colleagues who continue to delude themselves as to the reality of the results of the recent elections.
Mr Gaskin has fired two salvos on the social media platform Facebook, which must draw the ire of the desperate coalition members. The first statement, posted as far back as March 14 – yes, three months ago – reads now like a cautionary warning that something was brewing, and his suspicions were being aroused about GECOM. In it, he questioned why the Region 4 RO is “not bending over backwards to convince the various observers that his tabulation process was sound and all his results credible.
“If our election results are as widely rejected as they appear likely to be, then there can be no winners. We all lose. This is not what I campaigned for.
“GECOM needs to publish their SOPS for all to see. If not it can never hold credible elections in Guyana again.
“Unfortunately none of us can prevent GECOM from taking this process to its obvious conclusion, however, I believe the nation deserves to see all the numbers on which GECOM intends to base its final declaration,” Mr Gaskin added.
This statement, of course, was long before the recount and the accompanying drama.
Fast forward, to last Saturday, when Mr Gaskin issued salvo number two, a very detailed and comprehensive analysis of the prevailing situation. It is refreshing to hear a politician say exactly how he thinks and feels, rather than pitching a bag of wind to appease the masses. This time around, Mr Gaskin comes out like a heavily-favoured defending boxing champion who is in a hurry to dispose of the pretender to his title. From the opening bell, he is raining blows, left, right and centre. This is not a heated parliamentary debate with the opposition, but rather a severe caning of his coalition colleagues
In his opening paragraph, the former minister declares, “having stayed silent for three months” while the whole recount process was developing, I can no longer wait quietly and politely while our country gets hijacked, ridiculed and torn apart.”
‘While our country gets hijacked…’ Mr Gaskin lays down the gauntlet very early as to what he thinks of the coalition’s actions.
The senior AFC member (we presume that he is still affiliated with the party) then proceeds to list six points which he intends to elaborate on: 1) “A win by either of the major contestants ought not to come as a shock to anyone; 2) Supporters of the APNU+AFC were misled into believing that the coalition had won the election; 3) There was then a deliberate attempt to discredit the entire elections; 4) No evidence has been provided to support the claim of vast numbers of rejected ballots among those of the disciplined services, let alone the allegation of a deliberate attempt to invalidate the votes of the disciplined services; 5) No power on earth can convince the APNU+AFC leadership that it lost the election; and 6) All that has occurred since March 4 will make it extremely difficult for APNU and/or the AFC to defeat the PPP in 2025.”
In a very expansive examination, Mr Gaskin details his thoughts on the aforementioned points. He asserts that the PNC was never able to command the votes required to win an election and only managed to do so after joining in a coalition with the AFC, which was able to command the “swing vote that is more discerning and less forgiving than the constituents of the two larger parties.” Mr Gaskin opines that it is “certainly plausible” that the swing vote “abandoned the coalition in 2020 and voted for the PPP and the new parties.”
Mr Gaskin then turns the microscope on the now infamous Mr Mingo and his “spreadsheet” numbers, which made him suspicious once the final tallies were revealed. It must have hurt Mr Gaskin very deeply to have to pen the following words:
“There was no way his numbers could have been correct. Much to my disappointment, the leaderships of both APNU and the AFC claimed that Mingo’s numbers were consistent with our Statements of Poll. They also insisted that a final declaration be made on the basis of those numbers, and supported a court action to prevent a recount.
“At the very least APNU+AFC’s supporters deserve an explanation from its leadership as to the basis on which they claimed to won the election prior to the recount.”
Mr Gaskin appears to be at his wits’ end here, as he is forced to accept the fact that his coalition colleagues have no problem whatsoever with bending the rules to remain in power.
He notes the coalition’s tactic of a daily menu of “Breaking News” of more and more discoveries of “Massive Fraud” and “Systematic Rigging” during the recount process.
After the Caricom observer team delivers its report endorsing the election and the recount, a disappointed Gaskin laments that it is “rejected by a devious piece of reasoning by Chief Elections Office Keith Lowenfield.”
Mr Gaskin then clearly states that all these allegations of fraud were designed to fool party supporters into thinking that there was evidence of actual rigging by the PPP/C. The torment created in the minds of the members of the disciplined forces that their votes were not counted was a clear case in point of the extent that the coalition was willing to go to sow the seeds of doubt that “systematic rigging” had taken place.
Mr Gaskin’s summation of the coalition’s post-election actions is worrisome to say the least: “All of this leads me to a very uncomfortable conclusion. The APNU+AFC has no intention of relinquishing control of government. Five years after winning an election and gaining office with a fair amount of goodwill, the coalition is saying to the people who put us there, the equivalent of ‘unless we and until WE are satisfied beyond the shadow of a doubt that “more votes are cast” in favour of another party in an election that WE ain going nowhere.’ That condition will never be satisfied.”
Mr Gaskin ends by pleading with his colleagues to accept the results as they are and focus on regaining the confidence of the swing vote in the 2025 elections.
The Tank Man, Mr Gaskin is sending an ominous warning to all Guyanese. He knows what he is speaking of. He has campaigned and won an election with these colleagues. As a member of cabinet, he has witnessed first-hand the abandonment of all the promises made prior to gaining office, the shunting aside of the AFC in major decisions, and the unilateral appointment of the GECOM Chair. He has noticed how the trappings of office have changed the attitudes and mentalities of his colleagues.
When the history of this period is documented, it will be noted that it was Dominic Gaskin who was the one with the strength and integrity to stand in front of the turrets of the tanks that are willing to run over our nation, accept the bitter taste of defeat in an election and walk away from the halls of power, an act his former colleagues seem incapable of emulating.