3. The day's events were "disturbing evidence of the government's own refusal to acknowledge the extent to which the country's stability is threatened by a frustrated and angry opposition".

4. It is "incomprehensible that a party possessed of the wealth of intellect, intelligence, political experience and quality of leadership that is to be found within the PNC should even remotely consider that there can be any useful purpose at all in contemplating, never mind organizing, the removal of a legitimately elected government".

5. The majority of us are fed up with living in fear for our personal safety and well-being, recognize that "racial suspicion, division and confrontation, driven by politics, will certainly destroy us".

6. We expect our leaders to sit down and talk to each other, not to wage war and make us the victims.
Mr Jordan's anger is directed at me because I refuse to pledge blind loyalty to any party. It is an unfortunate attitude entrenched in our political parties. You must be either for or against them. There is no middle ground. Nothing less than blind thoughtless loyalty to the party line is acceptable. Anything else is "betrayal". This is exactly the stuff of which irreconcilable conflict is made.
I, in fact, offered my commentary to GTV and Stabroek News. The GBC, without asking me, obtained the tape and broadcast it. I would have had no objections. I agree with Mr Jordan that GBC should be open to broadcast any reasonable and professionally presented contrasting point of view.
Yours faithfully,
Kit Nascimento  

Civic group refuses to acknowledge the real problem
Dear Editor,
A Citizens Statement by "members of civil society" appeared in last Sunday's edition of most papers. However, a few points should be noted.
First of all the group comprises individuals of highly questionable actions in the current political crisis, people like Lincoln Lewis, Nigel Hughes, Hamley Case, Vic Puran and Stanley Ming. If the group continues to be constituted as it presently is, its work is doomed to failure from the outset.
The group finds totally unacceptable "the fear, violence, loss of life, despair, humiliation and hopelessness," in the nation. But nowhere is it mentioned that Indians have been continuously brutalised, robbed and murdered in the unfolding scheme to seize the reins of Government. If the group cannot face this simple truth, how will they fare when they encounter intransigent positions in their noble effort? Indians have become everyone's whipping horse, so much so that it does not even warrant mentioning now. Even our Indian-rights activist has joined a group which includes some of our tormentors.
The dastardly actions of the PNC/R have been completely omitted. This shows cowardice on the part of the group to face up to the violence of that party. How can any good come if we cannot face up to the truth, and "call a spade a spade," i.e. tell the PNC/R that they are responsible for the violence, and they must, henceforth, adhere to the norms of a democratic culture? The group views the current PNC/R violence as a "symptom of deep structural and systemic contradictions." In other words the PNC/R's violence is now being rewarded, and the concerns of traumatised Guyanese victims are being conveniently ignored.
The group's position only encourages the PNC/R to engage in more violence because the message is being transmitted that whenever the PNC/R is displeased about something, all they have to do is to inflict violence on this nation, and such violence will be categorised as "structural and systemic contradictions."
I am afraid that the "members of civil society" have unwittingly scuttled their mission by their reluctance to confront the real issue facing this nation. The main problem in this country is the unwillingness of an opposition party to abide by the rules of engagement which they, themselves, helped to formulate. Until this fact of a violence-prone opposition is acknowledged, then we are wasting our time.
Yours faithfully,
Hemraj Jaggernauth