The will of the people
Frankly Speaking...
One of my still-favourite PNC friends was wondering about how seriously the PPP was taking the goings-on in court with respect to the elections petition now engaging the attention of a Learned Lady Judge. This die-hard Burnhamesque but reasonable and open-minded PNC man had a few serious concerns about what he perceived to be a relatively carefree attitude by the PPP towards the enquiry. Though I didn't share completely his views regarding the PPP or the defence being mounted on behalf of the Elections Commission and its CEO, I did sit up to listen to one analysis he offered about the matter. My PNC pal, who might be well-positioned or experienced to acknowledge and understand electoral fraud, puts it to me that a case is being made out for the petitioner. I didn't bother to `ups' him on the electoral realities of his `old' days in power because he said the following: whatever the learned and wise judge finds, enough flaws and discrepancies are being unearthed to influence PNC supporters into thinking either that they could have won the `97 elections or that they did win! However, false that impression might be, could you imagine what certain PNC folks could do with that impression? Or belief? More ominous or damaging than that first impression, my PNC one-time Big Wig opined, is that, notwithstanding the judge's findings, whatever the results of future elections, a large portion of the PNC support would always want to believe either that they won, or could have won. Dangerous stuff that! Neutral outside observers or not. Whether my friend's conclusion is credible or not, it does bolster my position that the post `97 elections mischief was a huge, even if destructive, triumph for the Sophia-led mal-contents. Protests, violence, fear and menace, racist attacks, CARICOM interventions, elections petition, shortened PPP term and now doubts forever? Great wicked stuff all that! So the elections were so riddled with irregularities that the results do not accurately reflect the will of Guyanese voters? So what was or is that will? Man, even when I, as a young voter, appreciated Mr Burnham's preference for proportional representation as against the first-past-the-post lopsidedness, I saw too where the PPP still captured most of the people's choice as a single party. The people's will was fashioned into a PNC victory in 1964 only when the United Force (UF) allowed itself into being suckered into a convenient, short-lived coalition. But according to my leading PNC source, the elections petition might have already re-inforced mistaken beliefs in the minds of those who want to believe that they are the people's favourites: Which people? OK, even defeated minorities and opposition constitute real parts of the Guyanese whole but election results are still being used here to determine governments. Power-sharing will come after the people's will is expressed.
Twelve short, crisp jabs 2) My PNC friend, mentioned in the opening piece, says after the petition decision neither Mr Hoyte nor Mr Bernard would actually have to say that they won in `97. 3) Never-the-less, I make my weekly statement of thanks to Mr Hoyte, in advance, for understanding that the next elections won't be by January 17 next. But please Sir, please, please let your Georgetown Monument supporters know in good time. My personal gratitude. 4) What's this, the Opposition doesn't enter Parliament to say the PNC-inspired prayer - which includes praying for the "safety and happiness of the President"? Naughty! For decades the PPP entered and "prayed" for the safety and happiness of Forbes and Hugh Desmond. 5) The Law seems so "skewered" in favour of criminals. I know it's meant to protect the innocent, but just listen to defence counsel use law to protect the accused charged in the taxi kidnap/shooting. Lord man, eyewitnesses in the taxi saw and felt the shooting. But law says three men can't be charged with attempted murder when only one firearm was involved (?). And over in the US, the Supreme Court rules that officers cannot feel or squeeze passengers' suitcases if they have reason to believe that narcotics are inside. That's an invasion of privacy rights, the judges say. Crime does not pay? 6) I'm proud of new magistrate, Dawn Holder-Alert. New, but plunged into significant cases and Preliminary Inquiries. The law and the guidelines are there, I expect. (Never mind individual discretion and judgment). (6b) How's Beal coming along? And what about the Church street, American Medical School, Kes? 7) Talk-show hosts? TV personalities? Tele-activists. They'll get away with all the past, Stabroek. Law or no law! Ask the Wannabe "Larry King". 8) Enjoyed you this Sunday Cassie. Especially the piece, the jab, about the Holier-than-thou church which might pronounce on genetic longevity. 9) Welcome Talking Heads columnist! Fertile ground (not garbage) compost(?) for your piece. Familiar style. Hope you last many weeks. 10) Naughty Allan! The 56-year old Britisher Allan James caught with cocaine at the CJ Airport says he's learnt his lesson. But is that all? Who made the hammock handles? Who were his contacts? What? I shouldn't ask questions? 11) Bet the Animal Rights people will object to the success of the Rupununi Rodeo soon. 12) What are the Pakistanis doing here with no indoor facilities; no cricket; no sun? Wine and song? (Ms La Rose forbids me, from mentioning "women"). 'TIL NEXT WEEK!
|