– PPP? PNC? How “inclusive”?
Look friends! If others don’t do it; haven’t done it, I do it here now. What? Concede!
I concede, yield, confess that today’s repeat lead issue is born of my tired and ever-tiring saturation regarding the consequences of the incumbent group’s determination to deny the majority their electoral/political choice. So though I’m dodging the utterly divisive, sensitive issues, yet I remind you all what the stakes are. So the power-grabbing electoral thieves, the winners, the losers; all those who crave dominion and authority over us, whom they still regard as their subjects. Lazy as my mind becomes…
As a relevant aside, I recall my concerned bit of reflection when I espied quite a few loyal, tribal, political PNC comrades – mostly female – lounging on the parapets of Main Street, Georgetown a few weeks ago. Faithfully, they were waiting to protest in support of their beloved Party as the Court of Appeal in Kingston was to deliver its latest findings and decisions.
With quiet friendly concern I wondered whether these enthusiastic but simple working-class comrades had had a satisfying meal that morning; whether their Party and Government, through implemented programmes, had ensured earnings to pay for their rents, mortgages, children’s medical care and education.
Perhaps they did benefit from house lots and contracts and expect additional goodies before other citizens if His Excellency carries on. Or actually, they could be merely loyal to/for “their own”. Never any alternative choice. (Same applies to the “other side”.) But yes I was “too fast” that morning. Reflecting on reports of last-minute transfers of land and assets to the real “bigger comrades.” As their loyal remain faithfully hopeful.
******
Mighty to retain, or to regain
Quick reminder. Some significant assets, opportunities, status His Excellency and his lieutenants stand to lose (and what the PPP hopes to gain): Presidency, Cabinet Ministers, ability to appoint Permanent Secretaries/CEO’s, being CEO’s Chairpersons of Boards/Commissions; influence/directing how state assets are used/distributed. Appointments of diplomatic reps, “trade representatives”; contracts for friendly business persons who in turn “contribute” to ruling party and personalities.
Easier access to mining permits, gun licences, American/Canadian visitors visas (for self and family with VIP status at airports), “influence” with/over the police and army.
So you see why His Excellency wants ten more years? Why the PPP senses their return? Will the needy be remembered from the Manifestoes? Oh shucks, I “forgot” two decades of management of vast oil-and-gas revenues and resources in our new Guyana petro-state. Shucks! Y’all understand now?
******
PPP, top riggers now, congrats PNC
Those not given to dark negative humour born out of a naked transparent power-grab and those zealous supporters of the People’s Progressive Party (PPP) will not find the following funny. But I share this view because, evil as the objective was/is, I can still find time to congratulate His Excellency’s PNC on its masterful Goebbels-like successful propaganda in instilling in the minds of both the new generation of “PNC’s” and the older loyalists who want, who need to believe, that on Election Day (March 02 last) the PPP was able to commit massive electoral fraud, thus compromising both Officer Lowenfield’s staff and hundreds of PNC Polling Day monitors.
This PPP riggers’ success therefore catapults that Party to the topmost rung of electoral thievery in Guyana. All the PNC’s solid rigging reputation – elections of ’68, ’73, ’80, ’85 and a “referendum” – built up on 28 years of foundation, now easily supplanted by the PPP in one 2020 election!
Great stuff my old PNC! Poor new generation of voters. But on a fundamentally – serious note: after all the litigation and other insidious strategies to retain power by His Excellency, will your valid vote ever have value in the future? If His Excellency “triumphs”?
******
Inclusive politics?
What inclusionary democracy?
Because I tire as all this is being written I’m bound to return to this soon. For today these fleeting points: I had never heard of the word “inclusionary” until I saw it in Article 13 of our Constitution. That is a powerful but merely aspirational objective. It hopes that our “political system” would promote citizens’ participation in “the management and decision-making processes of the State.” Which government administration allows that these days?
Just as that Article is ignored by governments, I have no great confidence about inclusion or inclusiveness by the respective major political parties in Guyana. Whenever the PPP is in office debates about Shared Governance, Power Sharing, Unity Government etc gain currency.
If ever the PPP regains authority, would they have a generous – even necessary – political heart to accommodate those who just nullified a no-confidence vote and did everything available to steal an election? Where would trust come from? Is it true? Would Burnham ever share absolute power? Were you-all ever fooled by “R” in the PNCR or the “C” in PPP/C?
I understand this is the ideal political scenario for national comity. And peaceful progress. Constitutional Reform?
******
Ponder! Review!
● 1) How I felt for the Santa Rosa student sent away from his Exam Room.
● 2) The recount order agreed upon; no documents in Ballot Boxes; No Stamp on Ballot top/bottom; 115,000 invalid votes! The PPP really nullified Lowenfield’s staff!
● 3) Will oil revenues be used to bribe or to uplift? Or both?
● 4) Name 25 non-American Guyanese officials who should attract personal sanctions.
● 5) How will objective history judge our Presidential Historian?
● 6) Why use the words “Granger” and “honour” in the same sentence?
● 7) I missed it? Surely some American protesters would want “white” removed from “White House”.
‘Til next week!
