Leaders of the PPP are accused from time to time of not speaking out. Emile Mervin, Frederick Kissoon, and just recently Michael Maxwell, prolific commentators, so accused me recently. All organisations have rules. When you join one you agree to subscribe to its rules. There is no other basis on which an organisation can function. I chose to be a part of the PPP and to abide by its rule against public criticism.

Very often members of organisations have differences with proposed decisions. When these differences are on a fundamental principle, then the member is expected to resign. However, once members have a common purpose, differences not on fundamental principle are usually resolved. This sometimes happens when the members whose views are not supported, accept the decision and continue to work for the common purpose. Leaders of the PPP, like other organisations, do not always agree with all of its decisions. After debate, the minority invariably chooses to accept the majority view and work together for its implementation.

The PPP and its government stand for many things. These include the elimination of corruption, transparency and an end to discrimination. Many measures have been implemented to deal with these problems. I and both the PPP and the government have repeatedly pointed out the measures which have been taken. Nevertheless these remain matters of concern to many people. I have written articles urging that additional measures, already outlined by the Government, be taken to eliminate or reduce the subsistence of these problems so that the continuing concerns of citizens will be addressed. One thing I cannot do, unless I am prepared to resign from the PPP, is to add condemnation to my appeals.

These matters are often discussed in the leadership of the PPP. These discussions could be vigorous and disputatious. Assuming without admitting that my views are that more measures should be adopted immediately are not being acted upon as quickly as I would like, I then have to decide whether I should resign and go public. In contemplating what I should do I have to understand that I will be leaving an organisation to which I have belonged for three-quarters of my life, that still upholds the ideals I believe in, that I am convinced will work further to eliminate or reduce the problems of which I am concerned and that my lone voice outside would be far less effective as compared to my voice inside.

Let me make plain that the PPP remains the only party equipped by its history, policies and track record to deal with and resolve the problems which exist in Guyana including those which are referred to above.

Emile Mervin criticised me on July 6 in a letter in the Stabroek News for not speaking out. He said: (Mr Ralph Ramkarran reportedly said if he is the PPP’s candidate, he will continue the PPP’s positive qualities….) He also reportedly said if he is elected President that (the country can be assured that corruption will be tackled from day one, that transparency will be implemented, [and] that we will work as hard as we can to bring unity. As Speaker of the House, he never did or said anything to address these very problems he implicitly acknowledged exist. Why should anyone believe him now?)

I have written repeatedly about these problems. It is not my fault that Mr. Mervin has not read my articles. As a prolific public commentator, Mr. Mervin has a responsibility to his readers to inform himself before he decides to make accusations. I refer him to my blog which contains my past articles, the address of which is set out below.

Recently, on July 11 in Kaieteur News, Mr. Frederick Kissoon accused me of failing until only recently to criticise the NIS for failing to pay medical benefits to those over 60. Well, I only recently became aware of this rule when I attained 60 and contacted the NIS because I had to face expensive eye surgery which could not be done in Guyana.

Even more recently Michael Maxwell said in Stabroek News of July 19: ‘How exactly is Ralph Ramkarran going to change anything? Like Moses Nagamootoo, he stood silent or silently accepted the travesties of his own party for the sake of party paramountcy and burying dirty secrets. He allowed himself to be compromised by standing silent in the face of egregious venality. He did not speak. He did not call any of his errant colleagues to account.’ I have given an extensive answer to Mr. Maxwell in the Stabroek News of July 22.

Commentators and critics who scrutinise statements by others would do well to abjure prejudices, superficial considerations and villifying epithets when deliberating on their conclusions. The epithets do not add to the analysis nor strengthen the argument. They merely expose the weakness of a case which has to be supplemented by abuse.

I have spent much time, albeit modestly and hardly worthy of a footnote, to secure the freedom of my country from authoritarian rule, for free and fair elections, for constitutional reform and for the building of parliamentary democracy, all through the PPP, to which goals it was committed. And if the PPP can deliver on these, as it has done, then it will deliver on all the concerns of the commentators. It is with that confidence that I have remained as part of the PPP and have abided by its rules. (www.conversationtree.gy)