NIGEL Westmass in KN Monday June 6, 2011, lists a number of factors to support his claim that Guyana is not a place that is normal by any standard of reasoning. In fact, Westmaas opines that everything about the present state of the society in Guyana belies the theory of normalcy. One finds this kind of writing to be quite superfluous and shallow. First, ‘normalcy’ is a very subjective and relative term. And there are many existing factors which could easily debunk Mr. Westmaas’s claims. For one, women are allowed freedom of choice, citizens on the whole have freedom of expression, education up to the secondary level is free, and elections are transparent, fair and free. These do not obtain in many other countries of the world.

Secondly, the talk (that Westmaas mentions) about the “PPP’s attitude towards constitutional reform and power-sharing is re-confirmed by a recent statement by its General Secretary and presidential candidate, Donald Ramotar, to the effect that the PPP will only form power-sharing relationships with partners it can “trust,” is absolutely no reason for  a furore. Since 1992 (inclusive), Guyana has been characterised by patently transparent, fair and free elections. Prior to this period, the  the idea of a coalesced opposition front always had the import of using the PPP. It goes without saying that the PPP has entrenched itself as the most viable political entity in Guyana. So what the other fledglings are looking for is really a ‘piggy back’ ride. Since (according to the few Westmaases in Guyana), the PPP (like the PNC when it was in power) is so vitiated, then a coalition of the opposition (PNC/R, AFC, WPA mainly) seems viable. Yet this seems a forlorn dream. So isn’t ‘trust’ again the issue?  Does one need to revisit the AFC, as regards the Trotman versus Ramjattan jostling for leadership?

Westmaas should acquaint himself as regards the real reason for some people becoming ‘hate mongers’ of the PPP.  Many times, it was because these ‘sudden holy of holies’ were rejected because of their avarice, unreasonableness, and cruel demands.
Another factor that needs revisiting is the history of CARICOM and its precursor (Caribbean Federation). Guyana was slighted then because of the PPP being Indian-led and not pro-capitalist. Simply put, there was no trust. And as regards this ‘trust’ or lack thereof the Ogunseyes of Guyana are hoping that honest Afro-Guyanese can be philosophized into a spiteful, anti-PPP movement. One senses the latent anger against those ‘kith and kin’ who have embraced the PPP’s light and positivity.

Finally, there is no politics of “winner take all” here. Just look and see how inclusive the PPP has been. At the parliamentary level, there is openness and the opposition is free to debate, challenge and put forward propositions of their own. Has there ever been such a political climate in Guyana? For example, the things said and written about the PPP, and President Jagdeo in particular, could those have ever been hurled at  Forbes Burnham or Desmond Hoyte?