Is David Granger banking on China to save his regime?

Dear Editor,
The political crisis involving the 2020 General and Regional Elections’ timely declaration of results has given rise to several theories to explain and contextualise the PNCR’s intransigence at refusing to concede defeat, despite having lost (as confirmed by Caricom) the elections to the PPP/C by a margin of 15,416 votes.
A few analysts say that the PNCR cabal has too much to lose in terms of business deals, power, trappings of office, money, etc. A few invoke the Burnham legacy which dictates: “once in power, the party should never lose it.” Burnham’s successor as President, Desmond Hoyte, deviated from that PNCR doctrine when he conceded defeat at the 1992 polls. Hoyte instantly incurred the wrath of his (PNCR) party leaders and followers. For this reason alone, Hoyte’s performance and his standing in the PNCR have been diminished considerably.
David Granger has been confronted with the same Burnham doctrine, but unlike Hoyte, he is not prepared to concede defeat or to give up power. He unconditionally embraces Burnham’s doctrine of continuous power and its consolidation.
Granger recently asserted, much to the bewilderment of Guyanese and the world, that he is comfortable with the fraudster, Keith Lowenfield’s contrived results that were submitted to the Elections Commission. Granger did not care that Lowenfield had arrogated onto himself the authority to disenfranchise 115,000 voters. Of this number were PNCR coalition voters. Granger and his cabal no longer say that “every vote counts.” Instead what matters to him, is the fictitious count of Lowenfield. Granger has thus given Lowenfield the power to decide which party (in this case PNCR) should be installed as the next Government. Mind-boggling!
A few analysts say that the PNCR cabal believes that only they could prevent the marginalisation of their people (Africans) by preventing the PPP/C party from taking office. Yet others say that the PNCR’s intransigence is (1) a function of the PNCR’s passion for bullyism and (2) the PNCR’s belief in the divine right to govern.
While I do not necessarily dismiss any of these theories (there may be some truth in each), I propose another theory that is pragmatic in nature. I had discussed this at a preliminary level in an article that was published a few weeks ago.
Mr David Granger and Mr Harmon, among other PNCRites, are planning to replace America with China as their new “big brother,” and to drop the US from that status. They (PNCR) will continue to make superficial remarks about the good relations between Guyana and the US as well as with other countries of the West with a view to placating them. But these countries would not be deceived. Simultaneously, the PNCR has been developing stronger relationships with China, which has been making substantial donations and grants to the PNCR Administration.
With China holding a significant share in Guyana’s oil, as well as their continuous penetration into the Guyanese economy, the relationship has become symbiotic. The PNCR cabal has promised China the needed protection of their investments, properties and is offering opportunities for further expansion in Guyana. Once this open policy towards China continues, we can expect, not long from now, that Guyana may become a colony of China as is Hong Kong! We will cease to become the colonial subjects of PNCR but instead become the colonial subjects of China.
Should the PNCR seize power and such illegality invokes sanctions from America and the West, the PNCR will turn to China to fill the void left by the US and the West. Additionally, the PNCR believes (though I think wrongly) that Guyana’s oil revenues will more than offset western aid. Any deficit will be bridged by China, so they believe. However, this position ignores the geopolitical strategy of the West.
The PNCR cabal might be taking a cue (wrongfully) from neighbouring Venezuela where sanctions have not been able to bring President Maduro to his knees. The reason why sanctions are not having the full impact is the neutralising influence of the support that Venezuela receives from China and Russia. I believe that the Granger cabal might be emboldened by the Venezuelan experience of sanction-busting by China and Russia.
The major question for the US and the West is this: “can they afford to have another rogue State (making it 2) in the Caribbean-Latin American region?” Worst yet, the 2 rogue States will be next-door neighbours. From a geopolitical strategic perspective, will China be able or allowed to exert the same level of influence in Guyana as it does in Venezuela? Interesting times are ahead!

Tara Singh