My father was a lawyer and he refused murder cases as he said he could not defend someone who took the life of another. He refused drug cases for the same reason. So I cannot vote for the PPP Presidential candidate and the man who is likely to be the power behind the throne. The Presidential candidate has 19 fraudulent charges against him in the courts; and the current General Secretary presided over the murders and disappearances of hundreds during his tenure as President of Guyana.
I was in conversation with an ordinary Guyanese worker who stated he voted for the PPP because Jagdeo will put money in our pockets. When I told him I could not vote for someone who has taken the life of another, he looked at me as if I had fallen out of the sky in the last shower of rain. It means that some people in this country have lost their moral compass. And when the international community also do not have a problem with these personalities, it means something else is at play. Some of it we can say is geopolitics as David Hinds points out.
It seems that the western countries bring to bear on Guyanese politics, tactical and strategic interests which ignore the particular interests of the Guyanese people. Guyana as a petrostate is all-consuming consideration. While I do believe the people of Guyana have control over their own destiny, the following events appear to be credible, if not plausible. In 1964, the international community saw Forbes Burnham as a better choice than Cheddi Jagan because Jagan was a communist and Burnham was not, and Burnham won the elections in 1964. Because of Burnham’s socialist politics he then became a pariah and attempts were made to destroy him, the PNC and the country. In 1992 the international community wanted Cheddi Jagan to win and he did. In 2015, they wanted APNU to win and it did. Now it is in the best interest of the international community and Caricom for the PPP to win. Guyanese are not only being told that invalid votes are valid, and we must ignore our constitution, but that two suspect characters are acceptable leaders of Guyana. Another member of the working class stated: “I am looking at a white car, and I am being told that I am seeing a black car.” It makes me wonder if white racism, where East Indians are above Africans on the white racial hierarchy, is not a justifying factor in this instance. Otherwise, how can one endorse two suspect characters being seen as suitable leaders of a country?
Power-sharing seems to be the political flavor of the month. Power-sharing will only work if it takes into account the considerations of racial ideology, the economic power structure and the political ambitions of the respected players in the current political situation in Guyana.
Professor Kean Gibson
July 5, 2020
