The PPP critics in 2007
The Freddie Kissoon column
January 11, 2007
Two years ago I did a KN column entitled, “Feeding the PPP paranoia” in which I argued that the critics of the PPP deepen the imprisoning feeling of insecurity that the PPP was born with in the forties with their barefaced manifestations of double standards.
How can you expect the PPP to cultivate an attitude of accommodation when you, a PPP critic, display behaviourial traits that are equally repellant? Why should the PPP listen to you?
Of course, the leadership of the PPP deserves the bashing it has been getting since 1992 because they did the same to the Forbes Burnham Government. Lacking any superior moral quality over the PNC leadership, the PPP went after Burnham not only for rigging elections but also for any policy the PNC pursued.
The PPP is on record as opposing the introduction of national ID cards, the NIS, the sugar levy, the purchase of luxury cars, and everything else Burnham did. You name it, the PNC government did it and the PPP opposed it.
The PPP is in power now for 15 years, retaining the sugar levy for over 12 years. The PPP treats the NIS as if it is the PPP's money. We see how the Lotto funds are abused. If Burnham had spent NIS and Lotto money the way the PPP is doing, the Mirror would have carried a condemnation every day on its front page.
We had people charged for treason during the reign of the PNC; the same now. We had a well known political activist murdered when Burnham ruled Guyana; the same now.
Luxury cars are being bought by the government of one of the eleven poorest countries in the world. Burnham once did that (at a time when Guyana was not as poor as it is now) and the PPP told youths like me that Burnham was mad to waste Guyanese money like that. Look who is importing luxury cars now.
God! Youth can be rebellious yet stupid. I was a jackass to believe those things Cheddi and Janet Jagan and the PPP told me and my generation in the seventies about the Burnham Government. But guess what happened back then? Burnham was not inclined to show any changed attitude to the PPP because he believed that they had no superior moral fibre.
It is the PPP's turn to feel the heat. A significant number of PPP critics are no different from the PPP but this time I am much older and wiser. They aren't going to fool me. For this reason, I cast my pen not only against the PPP but also against the critics of the PPP. In the process, I earned a few libel suits. Not to worry, I will defend them.
Since the PPP came into power, it has encountered the fierceness of many organisations and prominent individuals. But can we trust these people? Should we listen to them?
In last Sunday's column, I looked at the integrity of some of these PPP critics that contested the August elections and felt glad that they did not win. There are others in civil society that are as arrogant and dictatorial like many PPP leaders and they treat those below them with contempt just as PPP leaders do.
Some PPP critics are not fit to be listened to because these people's morality is appallingly perverted. How can you tell the PPP leaders that they are running the country like dictators and you do not have an ounce of ethical make-up?
I was livid when I heard Paul Hardy, the leader of the Action Party during the pre-election season last year say that he would seek an accommodation with a certain television personality. This television personality has absolutely no respect for the norms that have guided civilised behaviour for centuries and centuries.
I don't like the nature of the PPP rule but I will never cross the line and even accept the criticism of the PPP by someone who himself may be uncivilised. Not because the Americans invaded Iraq without UN approval was Saddam Hussein a good leader.
Why should the Guyanese people listen to pedophiles and thieves because they attack an unpopular government? Television in this country has produced some weird people but we accept them in society because they are PPP-haters and it suits our interests to have them in our company.
Has it ever occurred to us what these people would do if they were in charge of this country? Two of these television personalities say the most comical nonsense that can ever come out of the mouth of a human being yet we find these people credible. How can any sensible human being find such a person, someone that can be involved in politics credible?
Happily no one takes these two TV guys seriously (except tragically the PNC that was the last party a certain TV man chose after desperately seeking a leadership position in TUF then the AFC and got ignored by both of these parties; he ran to the PNC and idiotically they took him in).
However, there are others that are listened to and their double standards are over-bearing. There is a certain commentator that I have been told has an exploitative employment system. No employee spends an enduring time at his firm. How can such a person be a spokesman for the Guyanese people?
Let me leave this section of my article with an interesting example of how this society operates and why I will continue to be a relentless critic of the entire Guyanese society. Last year, I was asked by the UG Students' Society (UGSS) to e-mail a joint letter of the UGSS and the UGWU to the Stabroek News and Kaieteur News. I did that. At the bottom of the document, it was signed by UGSS and UGWU.
When the Kaieteur News printed the letter, it had the names UGSS and UGWU. The Stabroek News published my name at the end of the missive. It caused some confusion at UG because the UG Deputy Vice-Chancellor queried my signing on behalf of the students.
Stabroek's explanation is that it cannot accept a letter sent by an organization. It must have an individual name. The next week, Stabroek printed an attack on the UGSS and UGWU by someone that did not sign his/her name. It continues to publish letters with the names of the organisations below the document.
I can go on but I think I have made my point. In 2007, if we are going to accuse the government and its leaders of hypocrisy, we will only get them to change if we prove to them that we are decent people.