Dear Editor,
Permit me to revisit the controversy surrounding the government’s decision not to allow the election of the Leader of the Opposition in Parliament.
The prevailing view in the country is that the PPP is afraid of Azruddin Mohamed, the WIN party leader, and that this fear is the reason they have prevented him from being elected to the constitutional position. I have taken the position, as stated in a previous letter to the Editor and on Dr. David Hinds’ Politics 101 program, that the PPP’s actions in this matter are not driven by fear of Mohamed and his WIN party, with their 16 parliamentary seats. I urged that the PPP knows it is capable of neutralizing the parliamentary opposition, whether led by either the WIN or the APNU, given the nature of our governance system and its winner-take-all logic. With a much larger majority, their domination of parliament is a foregone conclusion. My contention has been that the PPP was being “super cautious” given the US request for the extradition of the Mohameds, and was demonstrating to the American authorities that they are fully on board with the US request and were doing everything in their power to ensure that the extradition is not held up by government inaction.
Now that the Americans have spoken on the matter, urging the election of a parliamentary opposition Leader, the PPP will now feel freer to allow the election of the Opposition Leader to proceed. Unlike what many believe, the PPP’s leadership may find it difficult and even embarrassing to reverse their position on this matter now that the US has weighed in, as doing so could be seen as a blow to its credibility as a sovereign government. To attribute those considerations to the PPP is to under-rate the political bold-faced nature of Vice President Bharrat Jadgeo, the maker and mover of PPP politics. He and the PPP leadership would instead feel vindicated in the correctness of their “super cautious” approach in defence of partisan interests. For Jadgeo and the PPP leadership, survival is the name of the game. It is better to wait for the US clearance than to take a risk that could be potentially costly.
It is worth noting that the US and its Western allies expressed their position on the matter of the election of the opposition leader after the US intervention in Venezuela and the capture of its President, Nicholas Maduro. While it is not known if the success of the Venezuela operation had anything to do with their timing, of breaking their silence on the Guyana matter, we are forced to ponder whether their decision is influenced by the geopolitical situation in the region and to what extent the failure to elect the opposition leader in Guyana is linked to regional concerns not related to the Venezuelan issue. Whatever their motivation, it frees the PPP from its self-imposed restraint on the election of the opposition leader.
However, if the prevailing view is that the PPP fears Mohamed becoming Leader of the Opposition because he could use the office to influence their support base, then the American position on the issue has effectively pushed them to the “wall”. This raises the question of why the US chose to go public, given the diplomatic sensitivities involved and the fact that the PPP has proven itself to be more than a reliable US ally – some will say subservient. It is hard to believe that they wanted to demonstrate that Washington is in control of both Venezuela and Guyana. Some may argue that this line of reasoning trivializes the issue. To that view, I offer no contestation.
In conclusion, in objective political terms, the neo-colonial intervention of the US and its allies to force a resolution of the impasse over the election of the Opposition Leader, while diminishing our nationhood, will be seen by sections of the Guyanese community as a welcome intervention in the right direction. This is the state of our beloved Guyana.
Yours sincerely,
Tacuma Ogunseye
