AFC should apologise to the stakeholders gathering
I have heard some quite amazing April 1, pranks in my lifetime but none that I heard in the past matched two stories that I heard this year. And of course they both occurred in Guyana.The first story was about a man who went into a police station to report that he had just been robbed of over two million dollars which he had withdrawn from the bank. Apparently, as the report went, the man, who is separated from his wife, was hoping that upon learning of his dilemma his wife would feel sorry for him and reunite. That man must be a risk-taker because I know of some women who would feel the very opposite if their paramours were to lose a large sum of money. They would not even think twice about dumping any man who has lost a large sum of money. So if that guy has a wife who feels sorry for him because he was robbed, he had better try to win back her love because she is indeed a kind-hearted woman.If the Peeper thought that this guy faking a robbery to win sympathy was the best April 1 day prank of this year, the Peeper was mistaken. It would seem as if the Alliance For Change was trying to outdo that fellow when it hosted a press conference and announced that there was no longer any parliamentary democracy in Guyana. The basis for this mind-boggling statement is because of the failure of the PPP to allow opposition amendments to a motion dealing with the Stakeholders Forum. The AFC is contending that the refusal of the government to support the amendments proposed to the motion constituted naked contempt for the parliamentary process and the stakeholders.I do not know how the AFC arrived at that position since the government was within its rights not to accommodate the amendments proposed. While there certainly could have been no harm in including the AFC's demand for mention of Article 13 in the resolved section of the motion, there were other things that the AFC sought to include that were not part of the consensus reached between the government and the stakeholders. Therefore, it was unethical and unprincipled for the AFC to have supported the inclusion of items on which there was no consensus.In fact, the AFC should be ashamed to have sought to have included in the motion reference to equitable access to the State media. There was no consensus reached on this point during the forum and therefore its inclusion in the parliamentary motion would have constituted a betrayal of the larger gathering.In fact, it is my view that those who sought to have the issue of equitable access to the State media inserted in the amendment when it was clear that this was not a specific agreement on which consensus was arrived at between all the stakeholders, should be censured by being suspended from any future meeting of the stakeholders.The AFC should therefore, against this background, be lecturing anyone about the lack of parliamentary democracy which in any event has a much different connotation than simply being inclusive.When we speak of parliamentary democracy, we refer to the right of the citizens of a country to freely elect parliamentary representatives of their choice. It is misuse of the concept to refer to the lack of inclusive politics within the Parliament as constituting a lack of parliamentary democracy. In fact, the very foundation of democracy within the Westminster model rests on the idea that the people freely elect their Parliament. If, however, the Alliance For Change feels that there is a lack of such democracy and feels that it has no other choice but to take to the streets, then so be it. I do not know who the AFC is going to get to support any public march that it has.The Alliance For Change is a middle class party that will be unable to attract any credible following for any march against parliamentary democracy, more especially as it exposed the unprincipled nature of the amendment that sought to have inserted a commitment to equitable access to the State media. The AFC should seriously consider apologising to the ruling party and to all stakeholders for its support of amendments that were not agreed to by the overall stakeholder grouping. And the stakeholders should break their silence and denounce this attempt to use the name of the grouping to push an item, no matter how laudable it is, over which no consensus was reached.
PPP remains a strong and vibrant force
Dear Editor,From the beginning there was profound hatred and jealousy for the PPP and it proliferated and dominated every realm of their psyche. The dedicated consistency to the most perverted and brazen form of propaganda against the PPP emanates from the depth of hatred and jealousy for the progressive strive the party continues to make in the absolute interests of all Guyanese.In the history of local politics, the PPP has proven to be the most qualified and competent organised force to deliver the goods and services to Guyanese across the ethnic, social, religious and political divide. As a third world developing country, Guyana’s performance record is commendable even in the face of the harsh realities and challenges, a lot of which are created by the dominance and influences of the developed world.Guyana’s management of its economy by successive PPP/C administrations, the reduction of the debt burden and provision of basic goods and services to its people could be referred to as miraculous undertakings given the inheritance of a bankrupt economy left by the PNC. The U.S. Government validates Guyana’s investment in its people through its Assistant Secretary of State, Thomas Shannon, who visited Guyana last week. Shannon at a Joint Press Conference with President Bharrat Jagdeo is quoted as saying, “What we have learnt over time is that for democracies to be successful, they must deliver the goods and benefits and services to the poor, the most vulnerable members of society and to do that they have to invest in their own people and we are seeing that here in Guyana.” He went on to state that Guyana’s accomplishment is indicative of the kind of advances it is making in the very important area of people investment. Those anti-PPP band-wagoners, critics of all sorts, in their absence of rationalised positions opt to fabricate untenable claims about the persistence of marginalisation and discrimination in our society. These claims are orchestrated falsehoods aimed at undermining the potential for increased support, especially among Afro-Guyanese. The PPP has maintained a steady majority in general elections because of the increasing support of Amerindians and Afro-Guyanese. If Region Four is any example to go by, bearing in mind it was the traditional stronghold of the PNC, then the one seat PNC gained over the PPP/C at 2006 Regional elections requires serious notation. Shaken by the reality of growing Afro-Guyanese population within the PPP, these critics utilising their celebrated art of deceit sought to relegate the Afro-Guyanese support in the PPP nomination day parade to a bought and paid for arrangement, an outright absurdity resemblance of an entrapped mind. I am sure it is similarly amusing to every other sane Guyanese that these PPP critics, in attempting to rationalise power sharing as a solution to the withdrawal of their propagandistic masquerading, in one breadth challenges the veracity, competence and intellect of the PPP/C administration. These critics hold an entrenched hatred for the PPP because its philosophy, principles and beliefs remain relevant to the Guyanese people, especially the poor and working class categories. The tenacity of the PPP is of unmatched character. The critics, many of whom have failed to undo the onslaught of injustices against Guyanese in the many years of the PNC dictatorial and oppressive regime, are in no moral authority to criticise the PPP for a superiorly far better job of governance. Many of the governance issues that affect efficient progression in Guyana today were inherited by the PNC. The rebuilding process was never intended to be an overnight task, certainly not in the state Guyana was left. As the only working class movement in Guyana, the PPP will continue amidst all the difficulties of inadequate financial and human resources, to earnestly strive to shape an environment in which every Guyanese can lead productive lives through the development of their full potential. What’s next critics?Kwame McCoy
