The Observer
Much has been said about the Ministry of Health fire which occurred on the morning of Friday, July 17, 2009.

What is despicable is the insinuation and actions of the seemingly combined Opposition.

While these may appear to have surfaced subsequent to the fire, indications are to the contrary. This cannot be examined without our memories being refreshed on the modus operandi of the main Opposition, the PNCR.

Prior to having the “R” component added to the acronym of that Party, the three letters, PNC instilled fear on the populace for the twenty-eight years that Party misruled this country.

Many horrific stories saturated that regime’s rule; stories about the lack of basic freedoms and food, about the lack of social and physical infrastructure, about extreme poverty, about corruption, about intimidation, about rigged elections, about confiscation of property, about brutality, about the loss of life, about paramouncy of the Party, about silencing the Opposition and about plunging the nation into bankruptcy amongst others.

Many who suffered are still alive and traumatised. They can duly attest; the WPA for one if they untangle their “brothers-in-arms” web they weaved with the PNCR. This country’s history has been sullied by the atrocities during that period.

Here was a Party that did not respect the fundamental rights of the people. Here was a Party that engulfed itself with luxuries and extravagance.

Here was a Party whose leaders enriched themselves while the people suffered.

Here was a Party that literally proclaimed ownership of Guyana. Here was a Party that never envisaged itself out of government. Here was a Party that used the armed forces to suppress the will of the people by hijacking ballot boxes. Here is a Party that today speaks of decency.

The fear alluded to returned in 1997/98 following the general elections.

The PNC felt that after the demise of the founder of the PPP, Dr. Cheddi Jagan, the said PPP would have fragmented.

With this illusionary thinking and their engrained trait of refusing to accept the will of the people through free and transparent elections, they imagined an opportunity to take advantage of and hatched a plan of destabilisation.

Protest actions proliferated in the streets of the capital for months. Businesses were looted and destroyed; some stayed shut for prolonged periods. Innocent people were harassed and beaten. Many workers were forced to stay at home. The impact of such actions caused the economy to stagnate. Its recovery took years.

Whatever their excuses for such unpatriotic efforts, they were subsequently proven to be just that; excuses.

The CARICOM team tasked with auditing the 1997 elections found no fraudulent ballots and declared the elections to be free, fair and transparent.

These terminologies were alien to the PNC. They were unable to accept that Guyana, with the dawn of a new era in 1992, had joined the league of democratic nations.

The PNC found it extremely difficult to accept that it had lost, for the second time, a democratic election.

Their grip on ownership of Guyana was loosened by the power of a free people. This was the reality then as it is now. Their methodology of staying in power is no longer feasible.

This was only part of the destabilising equation. The other component was for the then leader, the late Desmond Hoyte, to deal with internal dissent having lost two consecutive elections.

His competence and influence were being questioned. There was only one way for him to prove otherwise; protest action irregardless of its purpose.

This was the tool to galvanise his followers and to divert attention from internal Party wrangling. These actions, which continued and which were followed by another loss for the PNC in 2001, were complemented by the crime wave which began with the 2002 jailbreak.

With numerous allegations of collusion by some operatives of the PNCR and the notorious gunmen, the country and its people were gripped with fear.

The Party did nothing to dispute any semblance of collusion alleged. They were more preoccupied in trying to gain power through means other than the ballot box. Many innocent people were hurt with some losing their lives during those turbulent times. The PNCR seemed unconcerned.

In 2003 one of their protégés stormed the Office of the President. Again people were killed and hurt and property damaged. Nothing seemed to have changed when the current situation in 2009 is examined in relation to the setting ablaze of the Ministry of Health.

The PNCR’s insinuations about a current court case in New York prior to the fire should not be dismissed.

While names are being called for whatever reason, the Party in collusion with its other protégé, the AFC and in association with other insignificant parties, rushed to cast aspersions on a particular person and to use the opportunity to protest.

Like in 1997 and 2001, the leader of the current PNCR is being challenged internally. At the time of writing this, six persons have been nominated to contest the leadership position at the upcoming congress.

This is a culmination of the many challenges he faced in recent years including breakaways, one in which resulted in the AFC.

With his back against the wall, the Party leader true to the Party’s way of thinking, has used the illusion that the government is weak as a result of the case and sought the opportunity to capitalise. This has led to the current set of poorly-attended protests.

The Party’s fragmentation is pivotal in understanding this current attempt of destabilisation.

The evidence reported so far by the police has dismissed accusations levelled against operatives of the Ministry by the PNCR and its associates.

Based on what is in the public domain, it is clear that the Ministry was deliberately set ablaze in an attempt to destabilise the country. There are rumours of overseas connections.

Given the current state of affairs within the PNCR, the fire presents the best diversion from the real issues; issues of fragmentation and lack of confidence in the Party’s leadership. It must be asked; if the protest and the current boycott of parliament had its genesis based on what was reported on the case, then why selective names?

If it is that the Opposition believes what is being reported, then Ronald Waddell, a PCNR elections candidate, was a criminal.

Their protest is seeking resignation from the administration despite any wrong doing proven. By extension, the entire PNCR should resign because one of their own was branded a criminal!

They should be reminded that lives were lost during the crime wave of which Waddell was implicated.

Why no protest against that? Why no protest against a former top army official who was allegedly involved in the removal of bodies from Buxton backlands?

These were revealed during the same court case in question. Based on what was revealed, it is clear that the Party’s protest is selective and for their own convenience.

Why no resignation from the PNCR as yet? Why no comment on the removal of bodies?

Why no comment on the alleged supplying of arms by rogue elements from the Armed Forces to the criminals on the East Coast? Is it because of their close association?

Is it because all were apparently involved in the failed attempt to oust the government during the peak of the crime wave? The PNCR should be made to answer these questions because their current actions smack of hypocrisy and if the revelations are to be believed, their past actions seem seditious.

The AFC leader must reveal what he knows transpired during the crime wave.

His silence speaks volumes. Is it that he is knowledgeable of what allegedly transpired between his then Party and the gunmen and is afraid to speak? Why is the AFC so supportive of the PNCR?

Is the current collaboration between them one of mutual convenience based on who knows what? In their protests they are clamouring for overseas intervention.

Let’s have that. Let the overseas officials come and be au fait with the tyranny Guyana endured under the PNC when they were in government and which they still impose in collaboration with the AFC whilst in Opposition. The fire has indeed shed some light.