The elections revealed the true depths of the Indian/African divide
Dear Editor,
The election crisis is over and a new government is in place. It is now appropriate at this point for me to address the unprecedented racism that was demonstrated in the course of the crisis. Bearing in mind that this took place despite the assurance given by President David Granger to the nation and the world, that he and his coalition/government will respect the rulings of the courts and once the Chair of GECOM declared the results of the elections he will accept the declaration.
The 2020 General and Regional Elections which was deemed the “Mother of all elections” in Guyana, has revealed the true depths of the Indian/African divide which our two major political parties when in office conveniently deny while using the rhetoric of “nationalism” that is, we are Guyanese, “one people, one nation, one destiny.” But to my mind, we are fooling ourselves, when in fact we are a divided people with no real sense of nationhood and collective destiny. Neither of the major races accepts the rule of the other and this is a major part of Guyanese reality.
While it is true that at election time our race problem is at its highest and is often seen as a contest for political power by parties and politicians seeking to hold power, this interpretation avoids the real problem, which is a historical struggle between the races for the control of the economic resources of the nation. Party politics is a means to an end, served by the belief that the group that is in control of national resources decision making will be in the best position to address the economic, social and political interest of their community.
This election marks a new and dangerous turning point in the country’s political history that after 54 years of independence the political racial divide and racism have reached an unprecedented level. The PPP/C leadership consciously chose collaboration with imperial forces rather than national reconciliation. They are willing to be servants of our colonial masters rather than of their own people.
The APNU+AFC government entered the elections as the most democratic post-independence regime, and presided over two local government elections, losing all with no accusations from the opposition of electoral fraud. In regards to the rule of law, the President and the coalition government demonstrated full respect for all the court rulings and the constitution once the legal process had been exhausted. Added to this the government has not repressed the opposition or denied citizens’ rights to free speech and to hold public demonstrations. No political prisoners have been put in jail on trumped-up charges of treason, there were no political assassinations and no shooting of workers or protestors and no state-sponsored extrajudicial killings. Despite this admirable governance record the coalition administration in the election crisis was portrayed at home and internationally as the worst administration in the history of the country. Why? Because the US and its allies wanted regime change to facilitate their geopolitical interests. The PPP/C on its own would never have achieved the kind of traction that it did in the election crisis. Their success was propelled by the imperial powers with threats of sanctions and punitive measures.
As a member of the WPA leadership and the APNU+AFC I was repelled at the unjustified attacks on Granger and the notion of the coalition as being undemocratic, dictatorial, and powerdrunk. Based on this racist construct, public appeals were made for coalition parties to break ranks and support the US/PPP/C’s erroneous crusade and concede to the demands of the unholy alliance, and ignore the President’s assurances on numerous occasions that he and the coalition would respect the ruling of the courts and the declaration by GECOM ‘s chair.
I conclude by stating the following: (1) I differ with President David Granger’s handling of the election crisis, particularly after GECOM had reneged on the agreement that the recount process was tabulation and verification. At this point, he should have made a political decision and end the farce. The pursuit of the legal course was counterproductive to the interest of the APNU+AFC supporters (2) I gave testimony to Granger’s honesty and consistency both in the APNU/coalition meetings and in the public that he would have abided by the declarations of GECOM’s Chair. On this matter, as I predicted, he kept his word.
Yours faithfully,
Tacuma Ogunseye