WEDNESDAY last, I hitched a ride with Freddie from Queenstown to Lodge. On the trip, we had a bitter falling out over Guyanese politics. The main theme, whether AFC, in its current configuration, could catalyse positive changes in our political culture of today and some of the missed opportunities while in government.

I came under vociferous, boisterous attack from Freddie. I swear I saw smoke of lividity emanating from his auditory and respiratory orifices. His essential accusation; apart from the occasional “gyaff,” I never presented concrete proposals or ideas to the leadership to help shape positive outcomes or directions for the AFC while in government.

Freddie couldn’t be more wrong. I, more than any other person in the AFC, was forthright and concrete with my contributions to the leadership. I used several approaches; I entreated, recommended, demanded and outrightly confronted principals in the AFC — jointly and severally.

From the inside, to them, I was like peptic ulcers, a source of constant discomfort in the belly. Perhaps that is why my ideas were patronisingly Pepto-Bismoled.
Without attempting to be facetious, I verily believe that if the AFC leadership had implemented even half of a modified watered-down version of my recommendations, they would not have lost national currency so fast and the seat of government in tow.

I digressed, so let me get back on track. During his verbal invectives, I asked him to calm down. I said, just this once, I will show you one email from 2017 (one of many I had penned over an extended period) with concrete proposals for steering the AFC in the right direction.

Freddie asked for permission to write about it, he believes it has political and historical value surrounding Guyana’s experiment with coalition politics. I gave my consent and excerpts were carried in his column this past Saturday. However, I had not expected him to write about the verbatim response of Ramjattan and Trotman. I think their response, their feelings, thoughts and experiences are theirs to share with the public in a manner they see fit.

We spoke after I read his article. I outlined that the circumstances under which I revealed that email was merely to demonstrate that I was not a talking, complaining bystander too afraid to make an input. I remonstrated that that should’ve been his only angle.

Freddie vehemently disagreed with this POV. He believes that the response and attitude of the leadership towards attempts to channel a change of political course is important in understanding the process leading to the AFC’s fall from grace. He believes that there is where the real value for political analysis lies. Aside, here are two observations from Freddie’s article: first, the responses are already out there and I will have no choice but to stand by them. Second, if my wife did not know I visited a location in Princess Street or if that location was associated with clandestine lascivious satiation, then the cat is now out the bag. Look how Freddie “woulda skin me up.”

There were three main things about the AFC that troubled my soul: I kept banging at the leadership about it relentlessly over the entire time in government. One, the party contained the following persons: political fighter Moses Nagamootoo who gallantly fought against Burnham alongside Dr Cheddi Jagan; Khemraj Ramjattan who often boasts about how he challenged the PPP leadership on corruption and its Stalinists instincts; Raphael Trotman, who frontally challenged Robert Corbin; David Patterson, the “bright” young political maverick and Cathy Hughes, the outspoken media mogul; some have referred to them as the Fantastic Five, inexplicably paid scant attention to the provision of the Cummingsburg Accord which required frequent party-to-party dialogue as a way of ironing out political kinks and formulating political strategies which absolutely could not properly be discussed under a Cabinet-type working environment.

From the first day, they abandoned the promise they made to the people via the Accord. There was not an ounce of dissent, resistance or grumbling when David Granger deliberately and systematically shredded the Accord. In many ways they were complicit; they resisted every effort from within to stage a reform.

Two, the way they abandoned many activists and showed absolutely no concern for their personal development, general welfare or future political prospects, continue to be haunting.

Three, the party boardroom had no input or control over any decision taken by its ministers in government. There was no centrally directed plan or policy originating with the AFC. There was no policy document guiding the management of any of the portfolios, except for their constitutional responsibilities to Cabinet; individual AFC ministers did as they pleased, in their own wisdom. The AFC has not shown a scintilla of evidence that it is contrite regarding its broken promises. The current efforts to cast the AFC as new management, under old faces, is hardly inspiring.

DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in this column are solely those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the official policy or position of the Guyana National Newspapers Limited.