THERE is a saying that those who look for faults can find nothing else. As the elections fever picks up momentum, the Opposition parties will go on overdrive to paint the ruling PPP as inept and unsuitable to continue in office for another term.The fact is that there is no government known to Man that could be considered flawless. The same is true for individuals. We are all prone to making mistakes. As the great Russian leader and revolutionary V I Lenin once said: “He is not wise who makes no mistakes. There are no such men, nor can there be. He is wise who makes not serious mistakes and who corrects them easily and quickly.”
Life is all about making choices and having to adjust and re-adjusting plans and strategies. In the final analysis, it is the extent to which we are successful in overcoming obstacles and confronting challenges that really matters and defines us as individuals. The same is true of organisations, including political organisations.
It is in this context that the PPP has to be judged. In and out of office, the PPP has consistently championed the cause of a free and democratic Guyana. The PPP has always fought for and remained a strong advocate for parliamentary democracy, based on the principle of one man, one vote.
Indeed, no other party in Guyana suffered as much from the denial of democracy and democratic rule like the PPP. In 1953, the PPP was removed from office in what could be described as a constitutional coup. In 1964, it was engineered out of office as a result of what former British Minister Harold Wilson described as a “fiddled constitutional arrangement.”
In the ‘elections’ of 1968, the PPP was cheated from office in rigged elections which persisted until October 1992. In the elections of 1997, the PPP was forced to give up two years of its elected mandate, despite winning a decisive victory in certified free and fair elections.
This repeated itself in 2014 when President Donald Ramotar was forced to initially prorogue and then dissolve parliament following a no-confidence motion by the Combined Parliamentary Opposition. In every instance, the PPP was the victim of an aberration of democracy and the democratic process for which it has always been the major proponent.
There are some who accused the PPP and Dr. Jagan of having made tactical mistakes during the 1950s and the 1960s which resulted in his being out-manoeuvred by Forbes Burnham into losing political office in the elections of 1964.
Similar accusations were made with respect to the signing of the Duncan Sandy’s Agreement which paved the way for the introduction of Proportional Representation as opposed to the First Pass the Post method which resulted in the PPP losing power to a PNC-UF coalition in the elections of 1964.
Our present Constitution does not allow for a post-election coalition government as in 1964. Had the electorate known in advance that the United Force and the PNC would have entered into a coalition to unseat the PPP, voting preferences might have been different, and the votes for the right-wing United Force which came mainly from the Amerindian and East Indian segments of the voting population significantly reduced.
One positive feature of our present Constitution is that it removes any doubt as to any likely post-election political configuration, as voters go with their eyes wide open as to which party or combination of parties they would like to form the next government.
The APNU- AFC coalition is analogous of the PNC-UF coalition, except that in the case of the former, it is a pre-election marriage with an uncertain future insofar as its chances of acquiring political office is concerned. Indeed, there are many who felt that the AFC has taken a big political gamble, given the dismal record of the PNC both with respect to coalition politics and governance credentials.
The PPP has always regarded political power, not as an end in itself but as the means to a greater end, namely to create a free, democratic and just society. This explains the PPP’s approach to the politics of the 1960s alluded to earlier. Indeed, this is the defining characteristic of the PPP and the PPP/C administration.
Political opportunism and dancing to the music of the rich and powerful has never been a part of the PPP’s political make-up. This is why when it comes to principles and trust, the PPP remains unmatched.
HYDAR ALLY