Posted July 18th. 2003. - Special Feature by David Hinds

Both PPP and PNC see the Communiqué as Tactical

PPP General Secretary, Mr. Donald Ramotar's recent letter to the Stabroek News (July 6, 2003) is an example of Guyana's politics at its best or its most absurd, depending on how cynical one is. Since Mr. Ramotar signed the letter in his official party capacity, I assume that his views represent those held by the PPP. So my comments go beyond Mr. Ramotar and takes aim at the PPP.

Mr. Ramotar takes Mr. Corbin to task for Corbin's comments at the Paradise meeting and he concludes that the PNC's signing of the recent communiqué was mere tactic. Mr. Ramotar is correct. But he does not say that the same is true of the PPP. Most of what political parties do is tactical; they do little unless it fits their political agenda. That is why their role in the Guyanese and Caribbean political process has been so counterproductive. Guyana suffers the most in this regard because its sharp racial politics ensures that there is little or no countervailing force to the political parties. Organized Civil society in Guyana is almost nonexistent.

But back to Mr. Ramotar. It is no secret that PPP and the PNC signed the communiqué at the urging of US interests. But both parties from their different standpoints saw tactical usefulness in the communiqué. For the communiqué to hold both sides must play to the script. Mr. Ramotar's anger at the PNC results from the PNC's deviation from the script.

What is the script? The PPP welcomed the communiqué because it guaranteed an end to the Buxton operation, which for more than a year exposed the government's inability to govern the country. The communiqué's tactical usefulness is that it provided the PPP with the political space, which President Jagdeo pleaded for a few months ago. The communiqué also brought the PNC to the table and having the PNC at the table as a junior partner (remember Dr. Luncheon a few years ago) does two things--it takes the PNC off the streets and it ties the PNC up in "talks" whose decisions the PNC has no power to implement.

The PNC also welcomed the communiqué because it guaranteed an end to the Buxton operation which had become an embarrassment to the party, and which was undermining the PNC authority in the Black community. Like the PPP, the PNC had become a prisoner of the Buxton operation, so the operation had to go. In any case, the Buxton operation was no longer useful to the PNC's agenda. It had turned its guns on Black civilians. The PNC could tactically sign a "truce" and go back to parliament because the PPP had been roughed up and softened enough. And a softened PPP is always fair game even with exclusive control of government.

This cat and mouse game between the two parties in nothing new. That's why they have always opted for halfway measures such as the Herdmonston Accord and the Dialogue rather than strive for fundamental solutions to the problem. Mr. Ramotar chooses to forget that just as Mr. Corbin explains the communiqué as tactical, the PPP had explained to its supporters that signing the Herdmonston Accord and the Dialogue agreement was tactical. The truth is that Mr. Corbin's statement bursts the PPP bubble. By telling the PPP that the PNC is at the table in body but not in spirit, Mr. Corbin has signaled to PPP that the PPP's tactical maneuver of containing the PNC is short lived.

This whole scenario proves what I have been saying since 1997--agreements such as the Herdmonston Accord, the Dialogue and the Communiqué, while useful in facilitating short term relief from instability, do not move the country any closer to a political solution. In fact, I would argue that in the long run they move the country farther away from a solution as they encourage political game playing in the name of tactics.

When Mr. Ramotar accuses the PNC of not wanting to b a partner to peace with the PPP, he is being disingenuous. He must be aware that only days ago his colleague, Ms. Gail Tiexiera, rebuffed the PNC and WPA plea for power sharing. You see, Mr. Ramotar, real partnership has to be based on equal access to the instruments of authority and power, which is what power sharing holds out. The PPP wants partnership based on a formula in which it alone has access to authority and power. And so long as it continues to hold that line, it exposes itself as anti-Guyana, which in our racial circumstances is interpreted by African people as anti-black. The sooner the PPP abandons half measures and admits to itself that it cannot and must not govern Guyana on its own, the sooner Guyana can begin to live again.

David Hinds lectures in Caribbean and Africana Studies at Arizona State University in the USA. He is also a political and social commentator who has written extensively on Guyana and Caribbean politics. More of his writings can be found on his GuyanaCaribbeanPolitics.com website.