Dear Editor,
I refer to Mr. Mike Persaud’s letter published in Stabroek News, Sunday, May 9th 2021 edition under the caption, “Ogunseye’s letter contains several factual errors”. This is not merely a polemical response to my (May 8th 2021: letter SN) captioned, “No mention on the political opposition in implementation of electoral law reform” but Mr. Persaud’s propagandizing against the PNCR.
Nowhere in my letter did I mention the PNCR and for the obvious reason that it is the APNU/AFC that contested the 2020 National and Regional Elections. Persaud ignores this point and spends a lot of time/space on that party. Readers should note that nowhere in his letter did he mention the parliamentary opposition (APNU+AFC) behaving like the US Embassy, the State Department and the International Republican Institute (IRI) that excluded the APNU+AFC from its public announcement on initiatives to reform our Electoral Laws, GECOM and the AG’s Office. This omission by Mr. Persaud, like that of the IRI and its employers, is deliberate. As I said he is propagandizing the PNCR as a convenient target since it invokes racial/political emotions that often renders discourse on national issues fruitless, be it elections or otherwise. Mr. Persaud’s approach is to use the PNCR as a distraction from the salient points in my letter.
Mike Persaud made four polemical points that warrants a response from me: (a) that I claimed the 2020 elections is the worst managed elections in history. He asked “what are the facts to support this charge?” My answer is none since I never made the claim that the elections were the worst managed of elections in history. I used the words, “…recent history”. (b) He disagrees with my contention that the US, UK, Canada, and the EU engaged in regime change in Guyana. On this point, there will never be a meeting of minds between Persaud and me. We have diverse views on what being an independent country means, the role of the diplomatic community and the conduct of international observers in observing elections and the sovereign right of national institutions to function without pressure and threat of sanctions from foreign nations. It is my conviction that all the above took place during the election crisis, and the results of the disputed elections were declared without the validation process of the votes as was required by the agreement struck between then-President David Granger, Opposition Leader Bharrat Jagdeo, GECOM and CARICOM which had the support of the US and its allies. The reneging on the recount/validation agreement by GECOM with the support of the US, UK, Canada, EU and CARICOM simply put, is “regime change”. (c) With his contention that Ogunseye alleges “new forms of neo-colonialism” Persaud rejects my position. This is not surprising given his own neo-colonial call to invite the same people and nations that in the first place created the problem and has over time done everything within their powers to keep us divided and from fixing the problem. However, to be more specific, if the US, Canada and the IRI’s announcement of their role in implementing constitutional and electoral changes in our election laws without any recognition of the parliamentary opposition that represents about 50% of the nation, is not neo-colonialism, what is, Mr. Mike Persaud? (d) He questioned my assertion that what is developing before our eyes is a US and PPPC conspiracy against the APNU+AFC, it supporters and the nation. Persaud instead sees the “PNC”. The evidence we have is that an agreement has been reached between the government and the US on the reform initiatives, without any involvement of the opposition. If this is not a “conspiracy” then what is it? Reasonable men/women cannot disagree on this factual matter.
My final point in relation to Mike Persaud’s letter is his contention that US Secretary of State, Mike Pompeo was responsible for Granger accepting the GECOM declared election results. He wrote “This is where the United States Secretary of State, Mike Pompeo, stepped in and shall I say ‘gently nudged’ Mr. Granger to accept the results of the recount” He continued, “These are facts”. I am in no position to address his claim that Pompeo “gently nudged” Granger. Probably Mr. Persaud was present when the two men met. What I am prepared to contest is that Granger’s engagement with Pompeo was not responsible for his accepting the results of the recount. The nation and the world are aware that after the agreement for a recount and verification of the votes was reached, President Granger, addressed the nation and give his commitment to accept results declared by GECOM Chair. He reiterated this to the nation at least on two occasions. On this, there could be no denying since it is public knowledge. Unlike Mike Persaud, I can stand and say without fear of contradiction that I was in three meetings, two APNU, and one joint APNU+AFC, where Granger points to his address to the nation and reminded comrades of his public commitment to the nation that once GECOM declared the election results he would abide by the declaration.
In closing this polemic with Mike Persaud, I wish to point out the hard and painful reality – that even among “progressives” there is little or no conviction for a preference of an internally driven solution to our racial/political crisis. Instead, we witness Persaud shamelessly call for those responsible for our predicament “to help mediate Guyana’s intractable political problems”. This is the tragic reality in the country.
Sincerely,
Tacuma Ogunseye