Page 5

Sunday October 28, 2012

Kaieteur News

Kaieteur M@ilbox

Page 5

Kaieteur M@ilbox

Apology to Freddie Kissoon’s historical revisionism on the PNC/APNU is wrong Mr. Carl Greenidge DEAR EDITOR, The PNC/APNU has nothing to offer Africans except political wilderness. Kissoon does not appear to grasp this reality in his letter titled “The PNC is desperately trying to survive” (KN, October 24, 2012). Contrary to Kissoon’s panegyric masturbation about “the great and historic role in this country’s evolution of the People’s National Congress,” I see the PNC/APNU as a tragic and sordid tale of race politics, marginalising, economic despair, dismal leadership, failing AfricanGuyanese, profound laziness and elitism. This has been the PNC’s legacy just as it has been the PPP’s. There is nothing great about the PNC’s role in Guyana’s history. The PNC was formed out of one man’s sick quest for power at all costs, built entirely on racial antagonism and political strife and played willing lackey to a foreign ideology and outside puppeteers. The PNC is the only main party in Guyana’s history formed entirely and completely as a race party. The PPP was formed as a multiracial communist party in 1950 and eventually became a race party. Strong African support for the Jagan-led PPP

over the Burnham-led version of the PPP in the 1957 election confirmed the early multiracial appeal of the original PPP. By contrast, the PNC was formed from day one by Burnham to pursue destructive race politics with the aim of securing power. The politics of the PNC from 1957 onwards and in the sixties was one of ethnic segregation and necessary violence in pursuit of it. The same applied to the PPP although the violence was a lesser feature. This country still suffers from it. Kissoon exclaims “As someone who practises revisionist history, I believe historical evidence exists to justify the PNC’s politics of the sixties that brought it to power in 1964.” Kissoon then renders the following explanation for his theory “When historians look back at the true nature of the Jagans and their organization and the people they nurtured in their party, but most of all the morally bankrupt and truly sickening nature of the PPP’s rule since the death of Cheddi Jagan, the people who embrace and support the PNC have nothing to be ashamed of.” That is an abjectly shallow and intellectually nefarious statement. I frankly cannot

see where in the historical tableau Kissoon can extract justification for the PNC’s politics of the sixties based on those considerations. Kissoon cannot be justifying the race-actuated and violence-ridden political stratagem of the PNC of the sixties because to do so would logically endorse the same strategy employed by the PPP as a counter to the PNC. Kissoon’s contention is undermined by the fact that Guyanese history has revealed to us since 1957 that the PPP and the PNC were not two extremes but similar entities in structure, orientation, philosophy and leadership structure. The major difference between the two parties is the PPP’s rabid pursuit of communism, which appalled the West, which in turn engineered events to alter the political landscape. However, history has proven from 1964 to 1985 the PNC pursued a socialist agenda with distinctly potent features of communism such as nationalization. The authoritarianism of the PNC was very communist. The true nature of the Jagans and their fixation on power and ideology is no different from the true nature of Burnham,

his megalomania and his quest to impose a radical and authoritarian form of socialism on Guyana. The PNC and PPP organizations were never widely dissimilar. They are both decrepit cesspits stocked with the same character-less men. Kissoon has to be deluded to believe that the PNC/APNU would not be morally bankrupt, incompetent and obscenely corrupt if they regain power. There is nothing in the PNC/ APNU to suggest otherwise. While Burnham may have attracted more intellect into the PNC, he crushed and suffocated them to his own power drunk authoritarianism. The Jagans did not seek cerebral types because they believed oxen minds were more pliable. The PNC and the PPP have delivered the same level of corruption, indecency and venality to this country. It is just that the opportunities to rape and pillage are far greater under the PPP today. The PPP and PNC are two sides of the same coin. For every Burnham there is a Jagdeo, for every Hamilton Greene there is a Leslie Ramsammy, etc. Therefore, Kissoon’s support for his thesis is flawed. There can be Continued on page 7

DEAR EDITOR, Mr. Carl Greenidge has written to me to inform me that at no time did he take advice from Ms. Gail Texieira in the vote in the PAC that saw the reappointment Mrs. Ashni Singh to the Auditor General’s Office. In the light of his statement, I offer an apology to him. Frederick Kissoon

I never sought or took advice from Ms. Teixeira DEAR EDITOR, In yesterday’s (October 25th) Kaieteur News Mr. Freddie Kissoon twice mentions my name in a piece on page 10 entitled, the ‘Tenth Parliament or the Failed Parliament?’. In the first of the two references that purported to show why there is great public disappointment over the Opposition’s performance he alleged that, ‘in a vote that saw APNU’s Carl Greenidge taking advice from Gail Teixeira that he, Greenidge as chairman of the Committee could not vote’ . In addition to the events being erroneous the article only mention’s two Opposition MPs by name, one in passing and the other, myself, apparently in dereliction of duty. These unequivocal assertions are utterly erroneous and have been repeated in spite of this fact being drawn to the

editor’s attention in relation to a similar piece by Mr. Maxwell published on June 8th 2012. To date neither has Mr. Maxwell’s assertions been retracted nor a satisfactory answer provided for the inaction. Please be informed that nowhere do the records of the PAC proceedings show that I either received or sought advice from Ms Teixeira. In view of these facts I should be grateful if you would draw the matter to Mr. Kissoon’s attention with a view to a having him publish a retraction of the allegation as a matter of urgency and no later than Monday next since you would already have had time to consider the issue. The matter of Maxwell will be pursued by the lawyer who wrote the Editor on July 31st, if I do not have a similar resolution within a few days. Carl B. Greenidge

Kaieteur News  

Sunday Edition