How many times…

…must Guyana suffer social death??
The historian Orlando Patterson, of Harvard – via our own University of the W.I.! – famously defined the “social death” experienced by those unfortunate Africans who had been dragged across the Atlantic and enslaved to labour on the plantations of the “New World”. “Social death” was a consequence of the slaves being denied the freedom that is the sine qua non for being human and living in a society with other humans.
We, in Guyana, had that experience during the slave regimes of both the Dutch and British for hundreds of years. It was to become free men and enjoy the rights that were inherent in that condition that our ancestors – both slaves and bondsmen – shed their blood throughout that shameful period. In 1966, we received Independence, and there was hope that with our “own” at the helm, we would at last experience “freedom”.
Sadly, it was not to be. Forbes Burnham, more to satisfy his overweening ambition than anything else, had split the united freedom movement and connived with the erstwhile departed colonial power to assume power over our destinies. Which, he insisted, he would “mould”. And this should have been the first tip-off as to what was ahead.
Ontologically, a freedom that’s born out of a Faustian bargain with the Devil could not but lead to hell. And wasn’t the colonial rationale for keeping us in subjugation the need to also “mould” us into worthwhile subjects??
And so, for 28 years, the PNC made all Guyana suffer “social death”, which eerily echoed the experience of the era of slavery and indentureship. Instead of the whip, we had gargantuan armed forces that made Guyana into a concentration camp writ large. We were promised to be “housed, clothed and fed” – just as in the old, degraded days – but we ended up homeless, naked and hungry.
But at the root of this modern social death of the Guyanese people was that most fundamental freedom of all – the freedom to choose those who would govern them. This had been snatched from them via rigged elections. And where there isn’t this choice, then inevitably slavery follows in some guise or other. The choice is always between freedom and enslavement.
And this is precisely where the new PNC iteration under David Granger is about to deliver us once again, with their refusal to accept the verdict of the people and their willingness to go down the Burnhamite road of elections rigging to remain in power.
That Granger has not brought out the troops to snatch the ballot boxes is a mere detail. That will come if he’s allowed to get away with this foul deed.

…will the Courts be invoked?
Just as we didn’t need the courts to tell us that 33 was the majority of 65, do we really need the Courts to tell us the meaning of one party getting “more votes” than another party to win the Presidency? Yes, dear reader, that’s what this latest move by the PNC is all about. Back then, they claimed that a “majority” wasn’t just a “majority”, as the Constitution state – but could be a “simple” majority or an “absolute” majority,
This time, they’re claiming “more votes” as used in the Constitution to decide elections mean “more valid votes”. But we know you’re gagging over your coffee, dear reader, as you think, “Wasn’t this what the recount was all about??” And which produced ten statements with the “valid votes” in each of the ten regions for the various parties?
But this is the PNC we’re dealing with…an entity that believes its base has an infinite capacity for being led down the garden path.
The Court will rule: “Gwan da side!!”

…will offices be looted?
PNC’s minions in high and low offices are looting the said offices – like they did in 1992.
Unlike Jagan, the PPP must deal with them condignly.
If they could charge a hapless accountant for an act of omission, what about this plunder??