That day, 6th August 1985, found me in a disposition best described as conflicted, still grappling with the finality of death, having endured the tragic demise of my beloved mother, at the hands of an uncaring healthcare. And having been wrestling with this one year past, being the age of a child, meant that described was accordingly catalogue as abstract. However, despite circumstance chaotic,
And with the enquiry duly recorded, my aunt unmistakably distressed, communicated in a tone somber, our President has died. However, her response fell short of the clarity craved, leading to an explanation anew being conveyed in language relatable: That man from the Monument, of lengthy speeches, has died. Then, it certainly registered, for the recollection was, my mother having confronted death, unbearably never returned. Which meant, our President having encountered that phantom entity identified, is very unlikely to be ever counted amongst us again. But even as this simplistic rationalisation was excruciatingly internalised,
However, with the years recorded early teens, my thoughts were preoccupied, so much so, it minimally reminisced on the man who once delivered those lengthy speeches. But that underwent an evolution in the late teens, on account of exposure to inconceivable narratives, which made the library my research epicentre, to provide an objective perspective on LFSB.
And it was from inordinate hours, devouring innumerable volumes, that the proverbial scales vacated my eyes, to offer clarity on the rationale supporting school farming, daily recital of patriotic songs etc. In fact, it was from this transformative re-education, that an insight into LFSB leadership was had, informing an underpinning of fundamental values, rather than inward-looking self-interest. Which meant, with fundamental values constitutive, the innumerable external pressures, unquestionably significant, were matched by an unshakeable leader, globally respected as a Conviction Politician.
As a result, with this dogma of Conviction Politics eternally ventilating Congress Place, an inseparable bond is anticipated to any, who identifies PNC. Therefore, with this politics supposedly intertwining their political DNA, then more bewildering it stands, trying to rationalise the betrayal of those PNC crossovers. For manifestly obvious it must be, Jagdeo’s PPP Opportunistic Politics, in prioritising self-interest over national interest, represents the antithesis of PNC.
That is, with national interest relegated secondary, PPP unquestionably communicates to the impoverished 50%, that despite an abundance of oil wealth, they will live to die pauperised. In fact, so entrenched is this politics of self-interest, that inescapable in their political psyche, is the Machiavellian doctrine, “The end justifies the means.” Which means, guided by consequentialism, they’re prepared to employ short-sighted gimmick, vis-à-vis police promotions, even as pervasive corruption is overlooked, all to achieve their political endpoint to control our resources.
Thus, with PPP standing for Opportunistic Politics, which prioritises self-interest, then the inevitable question is: how could they of PNC, who are diametrically opposed to PPP, so easily transitioned to the party of naked opportunism? However, to this most germane of question, the burdensome answer was aptly volunteered by Jermaine Figueira, who publicly proffered, his political home he has now identified in PPP.
And it’s from his assertion, albeit making difficult listening, that we were provided clarity, on the crossovers of James Bond, Jermaine Figueira, Daniel Seeram, Richard Van West-Charles et al, all being underpinned by the Opportunistic Politics of PPP. Which means, having unashamedly betrayed LFSB ideals, and in extension those of PNC, they’ve distinguished themselves, along with the party they now slavishly serve, as wholly self-serving. But with the binary choices unchanged, positioning two parties, one epitomising opportunistic self-interest, contrasting with the other standing for the conviction of national interest, mean we the electorate effectively have only one choice, in APNU.
