By Stabroek News
Dear Editor,
The political situation in Guyana appears to be in state of flux characterized by movements of persons in or out of one party to another. Never before in my fifty seven years in politics, have I witnessed a situation similar to the one currently unfolding. It appears as if we are in a season of restlessness in the membership of political parties and floor-crossing. To those who drew a parallel or similarity with the situation in the mid-1970鈥檚 when several PPP MP鈥檚 crossed the floor over to the PNC, they are mistaken.
Those of us who lived through that period would know that the circumstances that gave rise to that situation in the 鈥70鈥檚 are completely different from today鈥檚. In addition, there is a completely new generation of politicians who have emerged but have not been affected by the strong ideological and philosophical winds that swept across the nation at that time. Incidentally, I have not heard nor recognized, any expression of fear as the fundamental reason why those persons left the PNC and crossed over to the PPP; nor from those who left the AFC to join the PNC; nor from those who left the PNC to form their own political party.
Based on what we are reading and hearing from the crossovers and dissidents, it appears as though suggestions they made and ideas they floated for discussion internally were either shelved, put to rest or abandoned; that there was no debate in which the flaws of the current leadership鈥檚 reasoning could be brought to their attention; thus the casus belli and the consequential au revoirs. For onlookers, party politics can be strange and unsettling. It tends to make people wonder why, making them become more curious and prone to ask some very searching questions only to be left unanswered. One of the more nuanced or impenetrable questions being asked is; what is it or who is it behind it all.
Maybe the shifts in political allegiances as well the formation of new electoral alliances at the national level has been influenced by events taking place in countries around the world. Political elites of today have on one hand, accepted or welcomed the collapse of ideologies, but on the other hand, that collapse has multiplied not reduced, the competitive nature of politics and the leadership and/or presidential ambitions of the new kids on the political block. Sad to say, people will not get answers from the tales people tell them, nor from newspaper editorials, letters to the editor nor from the stories they read in mainstream or social media. The answers are usually born as a result of internal battles fought at a given time and place. But most times, the answers are carried to the graves or crematorium by those who kept them to themselves.
To some, certain events like the departure of Ramkarran and Jonas from ANUG would appear strange, but it is not strange because logic and commonsense tell us that their departure was to be expected and why. Moreover, past experience tells us that differences in political/ ideological views can emerge at the top, but when those views clash or diverge, political allegiances and friendships can change too. Perhaps the Gandhian view; 鈥淔riendship that insists upon agreement on all matters is not worth the name鈥 never occurred to any of them.
Some say that the explanations offered in respect to political hopscotching get under the skin of rank and file party supporters; they go on to say that public debates for and against these political happenings can be challenging and confusing, whether they are for good or for ill meaning. If it is the latter, then those who are being misled by the false words of charlatans, shysters or demagogues will end up holding the wrong end of the stick. Experience has shown that some political parties who emerge or re-emerge only in an election season and described as 鈥榝ly-by-night鈥 or 鈥榤ushroom parties,鈥 eventually end up as mere footnotes in our country鈥檚 political historiography.
Over the course of my political life spanning fifty seven years I had cause to listen, to read and sometimes to laugh at how history consigned some political and presidential aspirants to nothingness reminding me of the parable of the wedding feast; 鈥楳any are called but few are chosen.鈥 Without looking before they leap into the complexities of administering the affairs of government and seemingly unconcerned by the finitude of their own lives, certain presidential hopefuls, donning the role of a gamester or gambler, immerse themselves in crowds that make their heads swim, only to eventually choke, faint and then disappear.
In time to come, many more like those who would have crossed over and joined with others to dislodge the incumbent or who would have convinced themselves that, 鈥榯his is my time鈥 will, after September 1, realize that as Jimmy Cliff sang there are yet 鈥楳any Rivers To Cross.鈥
Clement J. Rohee