Unless your recent existence has been under the proverbial rock, likely your awareness would be, there has been an inconsequential number of persons once registered PNC, who have inexplicably endorsed the nineteen criminal charges Irfaan Ali. However, even as they undertake what can only be described as the inexplicable, bewildered we are, as to their appreciation of what such endorsements represent.
In fact, such dubious endorsements represent not only public support of this installed government sordid record, but also evidence approval for Irfaan Ali’s questionable values, exemplified in his academic fraud. Thus, considering the reasons offered, in the context of these inexplicable endorsements, one would be compelled to question if the underpinning rationale for such duplicitous acts, were political or personal.
The fact is, informed by international practice, political endorsements as an indispensable medium of validation, can also be that invaluable tool, serving to assuage any lingering doubts about a candidate, by presenting them as both credible and suitable for elected office. That being said, with Ali’s PPP depraved record being one of discrimination, victimisation, corruption and extrajudicial killings, the crossovers full-throated endorsement of him, as credible and suitable, raises genuine concerns about their judgement.
Moreover, again informed by international practice, endorsers with cohorts of established networks and platforms, are more often than not, able to facilitate a candidate reaching demographics that might have otherwise been difficult to access. However, our political construct remains unique, which means such international practice described, may not hold true, especially in the context of the aforementioned crossovers being inconsequential minions, devoid of credible political following.
Therefore, considering Ali’s PPP sordid record, which these inconsequential minions have themselves forcefully condemned, one would be compelled to interrogate their motivation. In fact, interrogating such self-serving political motivation, would mandate a forensic examination through dispassionate lens, any contributing factor in their personal lives. To this end, we position these three selected crossovers under the credibility microscope, where first up is James Bond, a malleable creature burdened with PPP political charges, for fraudulently awarding state lands.
Then, there is the opportunistic aristocrat, Dr. Richard Van West-Charles, who also faces political charges, for falsification of an invoice presented to Guyana Energy Agency. Thereafter, we examine the trigger-happy Captain Daniel Seeram, who in a land of pervasive domestic abuse and femicide, was twice charged with spousal gun violence. And evidencing his dangerous proclivity to gun violence, Captain Daniel Seeram was also charged with threatening his father-in-law with said firearm.
Having said that, in democratic societies, there is the concept of separation of powers among the government branches, namely executive, legislative and judiciary. Where the underpinning reasons for such separations, aren’t only to prevent the centralisation of power, but also to ensure the all-important checks and balances. In fact, this governmental framework so described, where the legislative makes laws, executive enforces, and judiciary interprets, was so designed to prevent dictatorship.
However, this democratic framework described, where there is separation of powers, is conspicuously absent in this installed government. For that unmistakable under this PPP regime, is the installed executive instructing the judiciary, and in so doing, eroding the guardrails of democracy, with evolution into a political dictatorship. In fact, indisputable it was, the installed executive instructing the Judiciary, in the cases of PPP aligned Nigel Dharamlall, Irfaan Ali, Ashni Singh, Winston Brassington et al. And it’s this recognition, of the installed executive instructing the Judiciary, that these opportunistic political crossovers facing criminal charges, endorsed Irfaan Ali, in a naked quid pro quo.
Thus, being cognisant that these endorsements come with no political clout, even as they present a criminal burden not unfamiliar to PPP, begs the question, what benefit will PPP derive? In fact, despite the self-serving crossovers limited influence in our binary political environment, they can be of benefit by presenting the façade of PPP dominance with bipartisan support. Therefore, informed by the aforementioned arguments, the inference is, the crossovers of criminal and political burdens, are less about political benefits, even as they represent more self-centred personal interest.
