Forms of degeneracy after 2015 that killed Guyana’s future
Gerhard Ramsaroop, after a long absence from polemics and discourses in the political realm, has analysed recent political trends in a large letter to both KN and SN last Sunday. But in as much as his dissertation is welcomed, it lacks context and introduced an irrelevant juxtaposition between the AFC and PNC.
In terms of context, the evaluation does not embrace a holistic approach to the dialectical connection between the last ten years of PPP’s rule and the post-2015 deterioration of governance. Interconnected with the omission of context is the unnecessary juxtaposition of the performance of the AFC and PNC. A holistic perspective renders such a methodology unnecessary.
In analysing the type of governance Guyana has since 2015, three types of degeneracy repulsed the Guyanese nation. I will list them in order of importance. The first, as Gerhard pointedly emphasised was the dissolution of the AFC’s transformative physiology (my way of putting it and not Gerhard’s). The AFC destroyed the seminal value of multi-racial, third force politics that was so vitally needed.
Secondly, the nation’s curiosity about the newness David Granger would bring to Guyana was shattered when he proved that he lacked even small quantities of leadership qualities. Finally, the atrophy of the WPA from a Rodneyite, revolutionary, multi-racial party, to a racial outfit, catering to the interests of African Guyanese only.
Space would not allow for a polemical outlay of these three degenerations. One can dispense with the WPA quickly. If you look at the known political entities at the moment, the WPA lacks a multi-racial face compared to Lenox Shuman’s Liberal and Justice Party, ANUG, the PNC and the PPP.
The Rodney family should seek an injunction against the use of Walter Rodney’s name for the WPA’s television programme, “Walter Rodney Groundings.” The current WPA appears as an exclusive African party, speaking to African Guyanese only.
In terms of the self-destruction of the AFC, there isn’t much to add that political observers and academics do not know. Gerhard is correct that it squandered the priceless opportunity Guyanese offered it. It would be a caricature unparalleled in Guyanese history, for such a declining organism to be given the prime minister position, seven Cabinet posts and twelve parliamentary seats in 2019. Only a fool will bet that the AFC will get those same numbers if APNU+AFC wins the upcoming elections.
The crucial flaw in Gerhard’s adumbration is any mention of the PNC’s impure politics and selfish hogging of power since 2015. One is tempted to be harsh on Gerhard to say that he could be accused either of brazen support for the PNC or intellectual limitation. Not only the AFC and WPA declined after 2015, so did the PNC and its new guy who came without baggage –David Granger.
No one – scholar, political observer, editor, the independent mind- can gloss over the failure of the PNC in power since 2015 to bring higher, purer forms of governance. On the contrary, there have been disturbing regressions. One can start with the man Granger, himself. I taught Gerhard at UG and always credited him with an analytical mind. But his elevation of Granger in his letter is unpalatable.
I honestly (and I stress, the adverb because I sincerely feel so) cannot see what positive leadership Granger has brought to Guyana in the context of what went on before 2015. This is why at the beginning of this articulation here, I referred to context.
Guyana’s had witnessed the emergence of forms of semi-fascism under both Jagdeo and Ramotar. There was political, cultural, social and societal debasement under these two presidents. I saw and wrote about a creeping fascistisation under Jagdeo.
In the context of this Faustian insanity, David Granger was chosen and was accepted because he was new and the PNC was new; going under the name of APNU. Both the novelty of Granger and APNU fizzed out like a damp squib. Gerhard’s letter comes at a time when Granger may be exhibiting Freudian desires. After all, he is a strong admirer of Forbes Burnham and this takes the form of four foundations he has set up in Burnham’s name at his former private residence.
It is my contestation that since he departed from the Carter formula in selecting a GECOM chairman, Granger began to show his colours (no pun intended, though I hold the opinion that there are ethnic preferences and racial patronage under his presidency). Since the no-confidence vote, Granger has displayed attitudes that in the opinion of this columnist appear that he will not walk in the direction that Hoyte took.
Sorry to say Gerhard, but to me, your guy is not the democrat you claim he is.
(The views expressed in this article are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the opinions of this newspaper)