A headline in the Sunday Stabroek quotes Dr. Richard Van West Charles as saying that there should be an apology for past wrongs. It also quotes Mr. Vincent Alexander as responding that all parties need to atone.

When sensible people do something wrong, they know that they must own up and apologise. They know that if they don’t, there are likely to be consequences. The PNCR was in office between 1964 and 1992. Broadly speaking three events occurred which traumatised the Guyanese people, namely, the repeated rigging of elections to stay in office, the implementation of authoritarian methods of rule and the destruction of the economy. The PNCR denies that the first two ever happened. In relation to the economy, it has repeatedly argued that its destruction was not deliberate but was consequential upon external circumstances and a hostile international environment. This argument has been rejected by many.

Since free and fair elections in 1992, resulting in the end of PNC rule, there have been many calls for an apology from the PNCR. There have been no comparable calls for the PPP to do likewise but there have been efforts by the PNCR to ensnare the PPP in this situation in order to establish some sort of equivalence to demonstrate that the PNCR and the PPP are equally responsible for the state of Guyana in 1992. The allegation is that the PPP was engaged in the burning of cane fields which the PPP denies. Mr. Emile Mervin, in a letter in the SN on May 27, referring to the accusation of burning cane fields, asks about the ‘ill-advised economic policies that destroyed the country.’

The rigging of 1968, 1973, 1980 and the 1985 elections, as well as the 1978 referendum in Guyana, are well established. Some years ago, Raphael Trotman, then a leading member of the PNCR, suggested that an apology was necessary. Leadership aspirant, Dr. Richard Van West Charles, has now supported the suggestion for an apology. We can conclude therefore that, despite the PNCR’s decision at a recent Congress calling for a Truth Commission where all can confess their guilt, opinion in the PNCR is still divided on an apology.

The PNCR’s call for a Truth Commission ignores the circumstances in which it was successful in South Africa. It was established shortly after the fall of apartheid when emotions were raw. At that time there was, understandably, a clamour for crimes during the apartheid era to be investigated and the perpetrators punished. The ANC government felt that the process of healing and reconciliation which it and its leader, Nelson Mandela, had instituted would be derailed by what might appear or be presented as persecution of the White minority even though there was evidence available to mount prosecutions.

The idea of the Truth Commission was to avoid such a situation. It provided that prosecutions would not be pursued against persons who had committed crimes, appear before the Commission, confess their crimes in the presence of the families and obtain their forgiveness. There was therefore a tremendous incentive for persons to own up and apologize lest they be arrested, charged and perhaps convicted and fact the full rigour of the law. In Guyana, when the PNCR went out of office, the PPP/C declared a policy of ‘no recrimination’ and, as a result, no prosecutions were undertaken against any member of the PNCR arising from its activities in government such as the rigging of elections. In Guyana today, 17 years after PNC rule there is no incentive for anyone to appear before a Truth Commission and confess because there is no fear of prosecution. The proposal of the PNCR, therefore, will be of no effect in resolving its dilemma.

Answering the call for an apology by fudging the issue is an attempt to evade responsibility and will not work for the PNCR. The victim of a wrong can forgive. But unless the wrongdoer takes responsibility, resentment, anger and distrust can fester. The PNCR is a political party operating in an adversarial political environment in competition for votes. As a serious political party it should understand the need to win votes away from competing political parties. If it doesn’t it will forever remain a minority party relying on its ethnic support for mere survival rather than broadening its political base and improving its electoral prospects. An apology will allow it to appeal to non-supporters without having to answer questions or deal with suspicions about whether it will ‘do it’ again. It can never overcome those suspicions unless it apologizes.

The PNCR mistakes the call for an apology as a call by or on behalf of opponents as a political tactic to win a political point and to give them a political advantage. In some cases this might be so. But, on the other hand, some supporters of the PPP may well feel that it is to its advantage for the PNCR not to apologise so that its supporters would maintain closed minds to the PNCR. But, as I said elsewhere, Guyana needs a strong opposition and an apology will enable the PNCR over time to remove the basis of suspicion in which it is held by many and facilitate its return to potential acceptability if its policies win support in the market place of normal politics.