Dear Editor,
Sir Winston Churchill famously said: “An appeaser is one who feeds a crocodile, hoping it will eat him last” and so it has been in this period since the successful no-confidence motion on December 21, 2018.
A constitutional crisis looms. President David Granger is fueling anxiety with his refusal to accept the rule of law; refusal to respect the Constitution; refusal to admit his Administration has fallen; refusal to set a date for General and Regional Elections.
An abdication of responsibility and a revealing flaw in leadership quality finally exposed to those with eyes to see. And for all this, the appeasers bow and scrape in efforts to spare him offence, hurt, ridicule or scorn.
The appeasement of Granger runs the gamut of ridiculous to sublime. Dr David Hinds speaks to the subversion of the Constitution by Granger as “outmanoeuvring the Opposition” while journalist Dennis Chabrol’s question at a press conference posited Leader of the Opposition, Bharrat Jagdeo was ‘complicit’ in the impending crisis for not offering to extend the legally binding 90-day election clock.
Chabrol knows that Granger has made no demands of Jagdeo for any extension or any other concession.
Granger has simply shut his mouth and is allowing his minions to sow seeds of confusion.
If Granger wants to legally occupy the office of the President past March 19, 2019, he will need assistance from Jagdeo; in return, he must acknowledge the Constitution as law and set out a plan for elections 2019.
Then, and only then, can Jagdeo legally act! Without a date on the table, any act by Jagdeo to extend the life of the executive and legislature is just as illegal as Granger’s refusals to date.
Editor, civil society actors, while fully acknowledging the intransigence of Granger as the source of angst, have still found ways to suggest that the solution lies with Leader of the Opposition who is urged into ‘action’.
This is nothing more than a cry for leadership; nature abhors a vacuum, the silence from the incumbent Chanderpaul Drive is unnerving the populace.
While APNU/AFC wages a ‘shadow’ campaign with taxpayers monies, sing of ‘war’ at Congress Place, make the vilest claims of extra-judicial killings of ‘black’ people, the PPP/C is talking about the issues of corruption, mismanagement, incompetence, cronyism and nepotism of this tiny cabal. Despite the starkly different approaches to the 2019 election campaign, another set of appeasers would have you believe that the approach of the PPP/C is the same as APNU/AFC.
Timothy Jonas talks of “the two major parties being divisive and seeking to polarise” while McCormack’s Guyana Human Rights Organisation (GHRA) in calling for “an agreement by the two major political parties to stop fueling ethnic insecurity” said “both parties are beginning to mobilise in ways that do not inspire confidence”.
I would suggest that such commentators are simply dusting off old sentiments and have not done any actual observing. In every public statement, press conference or meeting, the PPP/C has been vociferous in its calls for inclusivity, urging its supporters to recognise the evolution that is happening within the ranks of the party.
Yet the GHRA executive has seemingly not noticed, as they also failed to notice PNC’s Health Minister’s public announcement of a party card requirement for job seekers.
If you cannot be fair nor balanced in observation, your credibility is eroded and your organisation becomes as fossilised as the leadership.
During a recent conversation with longstanding member of the PPP, Shirley Edwards MP, a grand old lady who lived through the horrors of ethnic warfare in 1962 but who holds no rancour, and talks with passion about the strides the people of our nation have made towards racial harmony “Race relations have been evolving and I believe we are witnessing the first elections where issues are the main focus, not the colour of skin” this coupled with the burgeoning multi-ethnic membership of the PPP/C is enough to dispel thoughts that the party has any interest in stirring ethnic insecurities or needs political partners to ably represent all ethnicities in Guyana.
Guyanese must stop this practice of appeasement and stand up to bullyism; social commentators must be brave enough to stand up to the APNU/AFC. Appeasers are reminded that the undecided are always the first meal of the dictatorial crocodile.
Respectfully,
Robin Singh
