Dear Editor,
GECOM Commissioner, Mr. Vincent Alexander has tried without success to refute what I said in my missive published in the letter columns of S/N 22/1/ 23. The Commissioner claimed, rather cynically, that I ‘embrace double standards aimed at serving my purpose.’ As is the norm, Mr. Alexander’s view and conclusion in respect to what he considers ‘the illicit creation of a post and an irregular appointment to that post’ at GECOM are not only misinformed, but woefully misplaced. In his letter, Mr. Alexander sought to link, and at the same time justify, a misdeed carried out under his watch in 2014 to the situation currently at hand. In case he missed it, Mr. Alexander failed to realize that the misdeed he was party to, and the one he now claims to be ultra vires nine years after, places him in the realm of hypocrisy and practitioner of the same double standards he accuses others of.
In retrospect, the self-serving double standard which Mr. Alexander is unquestionably guilty of, is perhaps, an extension of the uncivil behaviour that was displayed by his comrades at the Ashmins building at Hadfield and High streets, Brickdam on Thursday, March 5th, 2020. The stand Mr. Alexander has adopted, now, in relation to the matter currently under consideration at GECOM, is precisely the stand he should have adopted at the time when he sat approvingly in support of the misdeed committed at GECOM in August of 2014. Minutes of a GECOM meeting held in August 2014 show that Mr. Alexander was totally involved in the discussions which led to Vishnu Persaud being shortlisted for interviews for the position of DCEO. The professed Mr. ‘Clean’ Alexander did not oppose Persaud’s candidacy for the position then. However, subsequently, he foolishly chose to oppose Persaud’s candidacy which costed him a substantial sum of money. Apparently, he has not learnt that overreaching comes at a cost.
Mr. Alexander purposely overlooks the point that Persaud’s rival was given an unfair advantage when appointed to act as Voter Registration Manager (VRM). It was on the basis of that unfair advantage that the much favoured individual was confirmed in the position, since she was seen as the ‘only one with the required experience.’ It is quite obvious to many, that all the noise being orchestrated by Alexander and company on this matter, is aimed at achieving a specific objective with another of their favoured candidates, in mind, to fill the vacancy for a substantive DCEO. From all he has written, it is clear that Mr. Alexander represents those who (often vehemently) profess to be supportive of transparency and accountability, but at the same time, consider them useless in pursuit of their partisan political and anti-democratic objectives. And just in case Mr. Alexander is not aware of it, Guyanese who uphold the fundamental tenets of a modern democracy, including transparency and accountability, far outnumber those who choose to engage in illicit activities aimed at thwarting the will of the people.
The Latin name for humans is Homo sapiens, which means, “man intelligent.” Since this may not be an appropriate appellation for Mr. Alexander, we might instead refer to him as “Homo struthio,” the Latin for “man ostrich.” My point here is not to get personal, but to point out that there are individuals like Mr. Alexander in our midst who are so insulated in their thinking that they tend to assume that anything or anyone outside their political/ideological universe is suspect, if not downright undesirable. This is precisely Alexander’s disposition in respect to the matter currently under consideration at the Commission. Experience teaches that whenever individuals adopt a stubborn stand against a particular matter, it’s probably because they simply do not want to confront the facts, as a result, these individuals are likely to find themselves facing similar situations in future.
Mr. Alexander refuses to admit that his views are misplaced and the position he has adopted on the matter at GECOM is extremely foolish and shortsighted, his escape route is to justify his action by discrediting the solution. The bulk of Mr. Alexander’s response to my missive I consider as fluff and the regurgitation of his opinion to which he is entitled, but he must bear in mind that ‘no man has a right to be wrong in his facts.’ As regards my ‘warped experiential background’ I would like Mr. Alexander to consider his judgmental assessment in relation to his association with a party that time and again, either wholly or partially, sought to deprive Guyanese of their right to elect a government of their choice. Mr. Alexander can do nothing but live with that badge of dishonour forever and ever. Amen!
Sincerely,
Clement J. Rohee
