The politics of opposition at all cost


Dear Editor,
YOUR report on “Opposition–led town council at Corrivertown stymieing progress – Gov’t ministers hear”, of August 18, 2019 is not a surprise, and should not be, if one understands what has been the PPP/C’s traditional practice of politics at the local government or grass roots level. In this same vein, one hastens to add that if such a backward, asinine, and decrepit action is taking place in a new dispensation, just think of what it was like during the fossilised era of blinkered PPP/C approach to local government, particularly in communities that were denied critical social amenities because of perceived ethnicity and political loyalty.

**At the heart of the Corriverton–led town council’s orchestrated action is the political strategy of creating disaffection between its citizens and Central Government by refusing its sponsored social programmes that will redound to the improvement of the community, particularly its security environment. For, under what logic can this municipality refuse 200 street lamps for its community?

Editor, it cannot be emphasised enough how anti-citizen and anti-community such political ignorance is practised by a council whose members are still sitting in the dark room of PPP/C politics. Sure enough, they can only be described as unfit to govern in the name of social development for their communities and citizens.

It is this particular type of political backwater politics which the APNU+AFC government, led by President David Granger, campaigned against during the last local government elections when they urged communities to elect citizens, irrespective of ethnicity and political affiliation, who are prepared to govern only in the best interests of their communities and their citizens. **Surely, the community and citizens did not heed such wisdom, but reverted to the known pattern and have paid the price.

Citizens in such communities are reminded that in their hands lies the power of effective change from such archaic political culture, and it should be used appropriately when occasioned.

The fact that residents were bold enough to defy the illogical PPP/C’s call of ‘chase them out’ by coming out to engage ministers of the government about the politically repugnant behaviour of their municipality points to a maturity which must be commended. It also heralds a realisation that they are fully aware of the critical social issues within their community which affects their daily lives; recognition that their municipality has failed them; and that the government has been working in the interests of all Guyanese and their communities, irrespective of ethnicity and political affiliation.
The businessman must be commended for speaking out; but one wonders why the region’s Chambers of Commerce, given their pivotal role within the entire region, did not confront the recalcitrant municipality about the many deficiencies that were brought to the ministers’ attention. It is time that they use their collective voice on such key matters, and not be selective.

Again, which municipality would want to refuse 200 street lamps, facilitated by Central Government, for enhancing the social environment of their community, by pursuing such anti-development obsolescence? This is a question for the Zamal Husseins of the Region.

Mark Dacosta