We have to confront our past so that we can move forward

Dear Editor,

I would like to respond to a few points in the Editor’s Note in relation to my letter that was published in the Stabroek News on May 15, 2020 and titled ‘OAS ought to be more sensitive with how it is treating with Guyana’s elections’. The statement says, “This is not the time to play politics or seek some historic political settlement that has eluded the country since independence. This is the time to call out fraud and ensure that a final result is delivered as soon as possible. In this context, Mr Golding’s intervention at the OAS was most welcome”.

I will respond to the last point first, my issue is not with the Organisation of American States (OAS) involvement in the electoral process, my issue is the role that the OAS and Mr. Golding are playing in the media and how that role is being played in the Guyana context. It would be more appropriate for the OAS to sort these matters out with the Guyana Elections Commission (GECOM). GECOM is still one of our national institutions, as imperfect as it is.

International organisations have a critical role to play as broker, mediator, negotiator, etc. and if this becomes the new normal, where organisations such as the OAS are getting too immersed in the internal affairs of countries, in the media, that is; then who will be the brokers and mediators and negotiators?

On your point about “This is not the time to play politics or seek some historic political settlement that has eluded the country since independence. This is the time to call out fraud and ensure that a final result is delivered as soon as possible”. Firstly, a fraud has not been established, it is alleged. Like I said the OAS should take this matter up with GECOM.

Further, while I agree with the Editor that a ‘political settlement’ has eluded us since independence; that bothers me. Part of the reason why it has eluded us, is because we do not want to confront our real issues.

We rationalize too many of our issues through the lens of race and politics. Many persons are afraid to address certain issues, for fear of being accused of being a supporter of the PPP/C or PNC, or as being racial. People usually ask me what do I want in a government? My response is, a decent government, not a perfect one but a decent one! Some may find it interesting to know that there are persons in the Coalition government who think that I annoy the government because I would not stay quiet; but wrong is wrong, even if it is done by people who look like us.

In an effort to build on discussions to try to find a political settlement after 52 years, here are some of the things that I have an issue with. I have an issue with leaders like Dr. Frank Anthony, Dr. Vindhya Persaud, Charles Ramson Jr., Juan Edghill, disappearing into the shadows of the PPP/C while Mr. Bharrat Jagdeo, seemingly took over the party.

I know that the PPP/C may come back at me, and say that this is their business, but no, it is not. It is my business too. It is Guyana’s business too. Or they would say that they are supporting Mr. Jagdeo from the background, please! They are all intelligent, smart, have ideas about the direction Guyana should go in and are respected by many, we want to see you in the PPP too. They should be leading while Mr. Jagdeo is supporting from the background.

Many, many, many, many people do not have a problem with the PPP/C, but many do have a problem with Mr. Jagdeo, and he needs to settle that with the Guyanese people. Why have Dr. Frank Anthony, Dr. Vindhya Persaud, Charles Ramson Jr., Juan Edghill retreated into the background and are not projecting an opposition that is, I am trying to choose my words very carefully here, let me say, that is ‘fresh’, for the want of a better word.

I have an issue with more leaders in the Coalition government not distinguishing themselves to take over the leadership from President Granger. Well except for Carl Greenidge and a very few others.

It is because we are not addressing our history and our real issues, that we continue to endure a society with these underlying levels of distrust that is pronounced at elections. Every government comes into office with a vengeance. The PPP/C became the government in 1992 after being in opposition for 28 years, and they came in with a vengeance and set out to undo ‘everything’ that the PNC did.

The APNU+AFC came into office in 2015 and came in with a vengeance after being in opposition for 23 years and set out to undo what the PPP/C did. For example, I believe that the Coalition government could have continued with the ‘Low Carbon Development Strategy’ (LCDS), even if it was blended and or modified into the Green State Development Strategy, but build on what was done before.

If the PPP/C gets back into office, they will again get in with a vengeance and undo what the APNU+AFC did. If the APNU+AFC remains, they will continue to undo what the PPP/C did.

We have to be prepared to deal with the issues from the 50’s and 60’s between the PPP and the PNC and Forbes Burnham and Cheddi Jagan and our differences, in order to move forward. So, in bringing up the past, I am just setting context for the current elections impasse. It is not happening in a vacuum, neither is it as simple as counting ballots and swearing in a government.

Some are now accusing me of being partisan, but somebody has to confront our harsh reality. I would like for us to hand our children and the younger generation a better Guyana than the one that was handed to us and it will not happen, except we address what are our real issues.

Editor, we need a political settlement in

Guyana. I support shared governance.

Yours faithfully, Audreyanna Thomas

Editor-in-Chief’s note: The report of the OAS electoral observation mission was well in line with its guidelines and cannot be considered to be an interference in internal affairs or an undermining of GECOM. Every Guyanese should welcome the lengths to which the observer missions and wider international community have gone to protect electoral democracy here.

The electoral fraud has been well established via a comparison of the Returning Officer’s declaration for District Four - as witnessed by observers and party agents - and the available SoPs and SoRs.