THE People’s Progressive Party (PPP) General-Secretary, Mr. Clement Rohee, on Monday reiterated that party’s open-door policy as it relates to new ideas on advancing Guyana.

However, he noted that any model or formula must take as “its point of departure” the democratic fabric of our society and the genuine aspirations of the Guyanese people.
“The PPP is cognizant of the evolving nature of our democracy and remains committed to the continuing search for a governance model which is reflective of our ethnic and political diversity,” he said.
According to the General-Secretary, for such a model to become a reality it must be buttressed by mutual trust and respect and a willingness to put the interest of Guyana and Guyanese ahead of narrow, partisan interests.
“Regrettably, the utterances of Mr. Granger and his APNU (A Partnership for National Unity) are not in congruence with the actions taken on fundamental issues of governance at the political level, which calls into question the sincerity of calls for a government of national unity by Granger,” Rohee said.
CALL ON GRANGER
He charged that Mr. Granger ought to “acquaint himself” with the PPP’s document entitled ‘Building Trust towards greater political cooperation’, which was published in 2003.
The General-Secretary said, “Indeed, Granger has much explaining to do in reconciling his purported desire for shared governance and national unity with the impunity with which he and his party jettisoned important national projects such as the Amaila Falls Hydroelectric Project, which would have provided cheaper and more reliable energy to the Guyanese people.
“He needs to provide answers for his stubborn refusal to give legislative support to the Anti-Money Laundering and the Financing of Terrorism Bill, which despite its importance for the economic health of the country is still to get his party’s support.”
Rohee questioned how the APNU Leader expects to be taken seriously, when his party has advanced actions that have “destroyed trust” and “denied funding” for projects that would have advanced the development of Guyana and improve the welfare of Guyanese citizens.
“The list is long as regards Granger and APNU’s anti-national postures, which renders it difficult to give any credence to any Opposition utterances of national unity at this time, given the high degree of distrust generated by the APNU plus AFC alliance in the Guyanese body politic,” he said.
The General-Secretary highlighted too that the PPP welcomes partners who share its vision of a “peaceful, progressive and prosperous” Guyana.
“[The PPP] extends an open invitation to each and every Guyanese to come on board in this exciting and noble task of advancing the good and well-being of the Guyanese people,” Rohee said.
HISTORY WILL SHOW
He added that history will record that it was the PPP that always took the lead in the quest for a government of national unity, which dated way back into the 1960s when the PPP offered the People’s National Congress (PNC) to join the Cabinet on near- parity terms in an attempt to forge a peaceful and cohesive society.
“That proposal advanced by the PPP was rejected by the PNC which eventually teamed up with the right wing United Force in the elections of 1964 to remove the PPP from government. It should be recalled that the PNC kicked out The United Force (TUF) from the coalition government a mere three years later, but not before it took total control over the elections machinery which through fraudulent means returned the PNC in all elections until 1992,” Rohee said.
The General-Secretary added that despite the authoritarian and undemocratic nature of the PNC regime, the PPP never gave up on its desire for a government of national unity.
He said, “In the late 1970s [the PPP] proposed the formation of a National Front government with an agreed programme for national development, all in an attempt to secure the country’s territorial and national integrity which was at the time under threat from external forces.
“The patriotic position advanced by the PPP was again rejected by the PNC on the ground that the PPP were the “Menscheviks” (minority party) and the PNC “Bolsheviks” (majority party) and arrogantly dismissed the proposal by saying that were the Bolsheviks to form a coalition government with the Menscheviks, the political history of the Soviet Union would have been differently written.”
Rohee charged that “such arrogance” has characterised the PNC ever since it became a player in the country’s politics way back in the early 1960s.
“It has rejected all reasonable proposals to forge a government of national unity, which is unlike the PPP which has always embraced and advocated a policy of national reconciliation and participatory governance,” he concluded.