Heinous attempts to cause division among Guyanese

Dear Editor,
A life-sized cardboard cutout of David Granger was used during the elections campaign; it allowed APNU/AFC supporters to take a picture with their leader. Five months after losing those elections, David Granger and his cardboard look-alike have become indistinguishable. The lack of care for the welfare of the people of Guyana and the refusal to accept the will of the electorate combined with an absentee presidency has allowed anarchy to flourish within the ranks of the APNU/AFC coalition. For all the leadership Granger is demonstrating he may as well be made of cellulose. How did we get here?
David Granger was assigned the task of leading a committee to find a new leader for the PNC following the 2009 challenge to Robert Corbin by four members deemed unsuitable. Lo and behold! The Committee reported that the best man for the job was the head of the committee (Granger). The man came with history; some good; career army officer, family man, some bad; Head of SPEC (Special Political Enumeration Council) and persistent rumours of links to the ballot Box killings in 1973. This was the mystique of Granger.
The reality of David Granger is more akin to the character Chance, the gardener who is misheard and becomes “Chauncey Gardiner” in the movie Being There. In a discussion about the economy, Chance takes his cue from the words “stimulate growth” and talks about the changing seasons of the garden. The President misinterprets this as optimistic political advice and quotes “Chauncey Gardiner” in a speech. I urge anyone who seeks to understand David Granger to watch this movie, the tale of a vapid man who said and did little of value but was interpreted through a prism and thought wise.
Over the last few weeks, APNU/AFC’s Joe Harmon has made increasingly militant statements culminating with a declaration that there would be no acceptance of electoral results based on the recount figures. As has been the case with the ever-shifting goalposts since March 2, a few days later Granger endorsed this position. Having drawn the line in the sand and thumbed their collective noses at the international community, APNU/AFC has now moved into the dangerous arena of anarchy.
The rhetoric of ethnic insecurity has been ramped up and amplified within their close ranks, the activists speak of “killings of young black men by the PPP” and a return to the days of the “troubles”; meetings and vigils are held by unknown groups to commemorate “victims” of that era. It is nauseating to see pictures of the Lusignan massacre victims on the same flyer as Rondell “Fineman” Williams. It is a narrative designed to stir the most peaceful of hearts, to divide the people of Guyana along ethnic lines, and to cause violent conflict among our six races. I am thankful that it is failing spectacularly, ironically, the pressure that APNU/AFC put Guyanese under for the last five years of disastrous economic and social policies have forged us into a gem with diamond-like hardness; the old tricks are proving useless against a united people.
We, the people are all looking at the actions of Harmon, Jones, Bond, Broomes, Jaipaul Sharma and even the buffoonery of Sherod Duncan with enlightened eyes, we know that the US has levied travel sanctions, we also know that it does not end there, hence the patient approach. We suffer through the frivolous court cases, the endless delays of the inevitable declaration of electoral results based on the National Recount figures secure in the knowledge that when those international sanctions ramp up, those guilty of attempting to benefit from electoral fraud will pay a heavy price for the privilege.
It is my fervent hope that these anarchists are permanently removed from our midst if only for the heinous attempts to cause division among Guyanese peoples. The cardboard cutout may be the only one of the APNU/AFC campaigners unaffected when all the dust settles and for all that Granger does now, the cardboard version seems the lesser of two evils and it certainly could not do worse than the incompetent, intransigent incumbent.

Sincerely,
Robin Singh