Dear Editor,
PERMIT me to make a brief response to an issue pertaining to the WPA that was raised by your columnist, Freddie Kissoon, in the September 13, 2017 issue of Kaieteur News (KN) in an article captioned “Why we expect the PPP to change if their rivals won’t change also?”
In that column Kissoon stated, “The PPP is part of an enduring, primitive political culture. Its essential mentality is no different from the PNC and the WPA.” This formulation of Kissoon’s is to my mind erroneous and is deliberately calculated to unfairly ascribe equal responsibility, to the WPA, for what he called the nation’s “primitive political culture.” I am contending here that only a politically naive or, dishonest political analyst and social commentator, in trying to give the impression that he is attempting an objective evaluation of Guyana’s political history, will come to the conclusion that Kissoon expounded on in his column.
To support his flawed logic and deception Kissoon, from his KN, June 21, 2017 column, quoted the following: “I called upon the WPA and Clive Thomas to explain if the WPA rejected President Cheddi Jagan choosing a minister on his own from the WPA in 1992, then how come the WPA allowed President Granger to allocate a minister from the WPA without the WPA formally selecting him? To date, the WPA has never explained this double standard to the Guyanese people. The answer lies in the political culture we have that never carried with it certain sacred values and still doesn’t.”
Kissoon, in the quotation he referenced, was fully aware that at the time of its making, he was being either too simplistic or, and this is not unlike him, being outright dishonest. I say this since he is known to and takes great pride in being referred to as an experienced political activist, analyst and theoretician; and it is in that context of the characterisation of his persona he is well aware that the two situations alluded to are politically and fundamentally different.
It should be borne in mind that the Jagan offer did not come as a result of a PCD election victory. It came after the PCD negotiations had failed due to the PPP’s take-it-or-leave-it attitude, which resulted in the failure of the PCD to put forward a joint slate of candidates to contest the 1992 elections and the PPP’s eventual victory at those elections. In short, Jagan was playing games with his ministerial offer.
Kissoon is fully aware that I have addressed this matter on a number of occasions over the years in public polemics, with no challenge from him, and therefore there is no need for me to repeat the arguments I had made previously. Suffice it to say that at the time Jagan made his offer to the WPA, the executive committee of the party did not consider it to be a serious one. This is borne out by the way in which Jagan quickly took it off the table at a subsequent meeting he had with WPA’s representatives. It also should be remembered that a ministerial position in a PPP government was not a WPA entitlement.
The political situation in 2015 was different since the WPA, a founding partner in the APNU and member of the victorious coalition, was entitled to have one of its top leaders appointed to a ministerial post. It is true that President Granger did not adhere to political convention and offered the ministry to the party, thereby allowing the WPA to name its minister. Instead, he named Dr. Rupert Roopnaraine to the position of Minister of Education in the coalition government.
The way it was done offended the WPA, but the executive felt that the political principle, which is the basis of our objection, would have been lost in a public polemic, given the celebratory mood among coalition supporters. We also felt that in the minds of the populace at the time that our principled position, given their political consciousness, would have been seen by the masses as “splitting hairs.” Politically, the matter in contention was not a simple one as events subsequently demonstrated. I know of no serious political party, movement or leadership that would not consider the prevailing situation in making decisions.
I wish to conclude by asking, comrade Kissoon who in the 2015 General and Regional Elections, had decided to campaign for the coalition and speak at public meetings as a representative of the AFC, two questions: (1) Did you not do so Freddie, as a result of your assessment of the prevailing political situation? (2) Your opinion now is that things are not what you had expected; are you now saying that you were wrong at the time you had made your decision and actively participated in the campaign and were you then and now, in violation of your sacred values?
Regards
Tacuma Ogunseye