Dear Editor:
Our American-based Afrocentric advocate Dr David Hinds reportedly said in Demerarawaves on 12-6-11 that "we are not going to take this lying down because this is a declaration of war on people who have a right to protest".
Dr Hinds previously said that "Granger has to be President of Guyana" even as the losing party got less votes and seats than the winning PPP/C. This demand for Mr. Granger to be Guyana's President has absolutely no foundation in law or fairness.
In fact, according to GECOM Commissioner Dr Bud Mangal, Guyana's 2011 National Elections witnessed 166,340 registered electors voting for the governing PPP/C while 139,678 registered electors voted for the losing APNU (a whopping difference of 26,662 votes).
The elections were certified as free and fair by international and Guyanese observers.
In an emotional outburst after Guyana's police dispersed an illegal march in Georgetown on 12-6-2011, Dr Hinds failed to dispel doubts about APNU's motives and proclivity for violence.
He was unable to explain or justify the non compliance with the required police permit. Why must anyone be exempt from equality in complying with Guyana's laws?
Nevertheless the rationale for all this street brouhaha was given earlier by another Afrocentric activist, Mr. Tacoma Ogunseye, in a letter to KN on 12-5-2011 titled "APNU and a responsible opposition should have rejected the GECOM results".
Both Dr Hinds and Mr Ogunseye have never hidden their commitment to achieve power fuelled on race alone. Historically, most PNC street demonstrations have resulted in violence, burning of buildings and attacks on innocent citizens in the past.
APNU street protests seek to enforce an unjustified opinion that APNU "won" the 2011 elections with 26 seats as compared to the PPP/C 32 seats. What explains the bizarre contradiction of Mr. Ogunseye, who nevertheless still insists "it is my contention in these 2011 elections that the masses of Indians struck an important blow for change".
Can Mr. Ogunseye actually believe that Indians were responding to APNU's demands for shared government and preferred them in Government? Does this mistaken perception serve as validation for APNU bullying itself to political power?
What has become obvious is that APNU's Mr. Granger has completely lost control of the extremists who have hijacked the party from his leadership. Not a good recommendation for a former military boss with a background steeped in discipline.
Remember, Dr Hinds demands that: "Granger must be President." With APNU losing the 2011 elections it would mean that the loser now wants it all! In other words, while the PPP/C had been accused of "winner take all" now the "losers want all".
What has significantly changed among APNU's leadership and core supporters in their use of violence that matches Mr. Ogunseye's perception of a changed Indian voting behaviour? Absolutely nothing. This can never be the basis of shared anything, until and unless PNC/APNU absolutely renounces violence as a tool for seeking and keeping power.
Is there any hope for resolution of Guyana's problem with constant PNC demands based only on race?
APNU can still showcase its skills by being true to its traditional embrace of complete partition or federalism. Both choices allow everyone to go their way and chart their own economic development and destiny.
When will Guyanese see a cessation of such demands that for example, 32 seats equal 26 seats entitling them to political power, right after internationally certified free and fair elections?
How can such distorted "equality" be acceptable in a democracy when it is based on race alone? How does APNU's public commitment to democracy reconcile with their protestations to want to work together; even as they yet seek to do so by bullying and violence?
Mr. Ogunseye, Dr. Hinds and other activists who peddle this fallacy of "losers take all" need to come home to reality. The opposition AFC fought the 2011 elections and rejected any coalition with APNU. APNU cannot now abrogate AFC's 7 seats to itself to make demands for "losers take all" bullying.
AFC's seats are theirs, and theirs alone, to vote as they see fit, not APNU's birthright. The reality is that the AFC has publicly rejected APNU and eschewed any race baiting, unlike that followed by APNU.
What is even more befuddling is Mr. Ogunseye sanctimoniously presuming to interpret and explain the motives "both from the standpoint of the low turnout and the way they voted (how) many of our Indian brothers and sisters (sic) demonstrated their refusal to continue to be prisoners of the PPPC's racist propaganda which conveyed the specter of an African take over if the opposition wins the elections".
Take a reality check, Mr Ogunseye. What many Indians indicated (amongst other things) is a rejection and displeasure of the PPP/C's neglect of their needs, fears and some PPP/C's leaders ostentatious and extravagant lifestyles. Most importantly, their voting and apathy reflects their racial insecurity and abhorrence to crime and drugs.
None can forget that "their" PPP/C threatened to derecognize their sugar union GAWU and to terminate and subjugate their health care benefits to the Health Ministry whilst closing Diamond sugar estate and terminating so many sugar workers' jobs.
The PPP/C's failure to racially balance the armed forces despite its promises will always be the Albatross around its neck. Up to now they have not been able to provide solutions to pressing problems despite being elected to do so. When will our electricity dilemma be resolved?
We can still hope that Guyana's extremists will become sober realists when they are able to understand and resolve their own contradictions. For example, Mr Ogunseye seeks to hide a deviousness in resorting to violence by claiming "on the other hand, those who voted for the AFC and APNU did so to bring about electoral defeat of the ruling party. The elections were seen by these voters as an opportunity to change the political equation through the ballot box".
Obviously the change that most Guyanese prefer is seen by their rejection of APNU by voting for both the PPP/C and AFC's multi-racial harmony. Losing an election cannot validate bullying and violence for shared government in a multiracial Guyana.
Sultan Mohamed via email
|