Dear Editor,

IT is safe to assume that December 21st in the Parliament of the Co-operative Republic of Guyana would be not only a historical event, but may well go down as a day of infamy.
Since then, we’ve had a plethora of suggestions from home as well as abroad. I note the credible and robust response by Rickford Burke in the media and one suggestion of a rotating Presidency from Mr Shahabudeen, writing from Ontario, Canada and, of course, my piece written January 10, 2019, directly to our political leaders proposing a Modus Vivendi, including the idea of a National Front Government.

I hope that a collective wisdom would prevail and that our leaders give consideration to these ideas. However, I wish to deal with a related issue which seems to be subordinated in all of the excitement. I refer to the threat from Venezuela. Guyanese need to remember this month, exactly 50 years ago. Certain gentlemen we describe as (local whites) proclaimed that they were not prepared to be ruled by the sons of slaves and so with the support of elements in Venezuela, we had the Rupununi Uprising.

Fifty years later, it is the same story, elements in the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela, after squandering their own resources, do not want the children of slaves and indentured labourers to benefit from our new found oil and gas resource.

From major reports, this matter was obliquely raised in the discussions last Wednesday about Venezuela’s ‘sabre rattling.’ This should have allowed all parties to agree immediately on measures to be put in place to protect and preserve the patrimony of our people.

As a youngster, I grew up in a yard that was completely fenced and we had dogs. Occasionally, someone would leave one of the gates open and allow a strange dog to enter the compound. Our dogs were always fighting amongst themselves, but I observed that whenever a strange dog made its way into our yard, the dogs would pounce on him.

On one occasion, the intruder was left helpless to die. As a people, why can’t we learn this lesson from our canine companions. We have an enemy at our gates, which requires a collective strong response as Guyanese.

The next issue: I see in sections of the media and in conversations with some friends from the Caribbean is the description of Charrandass as a patriot or hero. The gentleman is simply, in every sense of the word, a ‘traitor.’

I give one parallel, Lucius Junius Brutus was Caesar’s nephew and a colleague who never expressed concern about the regime publicly but secretly plotted with others the betrayal of the Roman Emperor and while many stabbed Caesar, Caesar was surprised and said, “et tu brute.”

December 21st was re-enactment of this kind of behaviour.
We find that in some circles within the region, people are hailing Charrandass as a hero; a magnificent absurdity. To describe the behavior of the gentleman in Parliament, to describe his behavior as that other than a traitor, would be quite out of order.

We had heroes who openly criticised the regime they witnessed and made suggestions and proposals for change (the likes of the German theologian, Martin Luther and Martin Luther King JR., the American civil rights leader; Nelson Mandela, Mahatma Gandhi and many others).

Today, we have the many letter writers and columnist, with whom we may not always share their views, but who write and speak from what they believe to be the depth of truth. They do not stab anyone in the back unlike the events of December 21st.

Today in Guyana we have the likes of Dr. David Hinds, Christopher Ram, Freddie Kissoon, Lincoln Lewis and the several editorials. In summary, let us be very clear. We’ve read and heard arguments about the problems in the AFC and concerns about the sugar workers and other matters that are extraneous. All attempting to justify Charrandass’ action.

In our democratic culture, people must avail themselves opportunities to speak up and express their concerns within the family or organisations to which they belong. There is an interesting book written around the Theme “The Sin of Silence.”
The bottom line is he betrayed the group he belonged to and which he never publicly raised concerns. That simply makes him a ‘Traitor,’ the likes of the Rosenbergs and Vidkun Quisling during World War II and the celebrated Traitor, Judas Iscariot who kissed Jesus.
The man is simply based on the lexicon dictionary and history a Traitor.
End of story.
Regards
Hamilton Green