From: <Singh.Ram
To: <energizer>,
<Asif,
<Caribvoice>,
<dorat>,
<guyanese@yahoogroups.com>,
<chamaylee>,
<machetti>,
<HHariepe,
<iamindra>,
<Indira>,
<lindenb>,
<nagasuwi>,
<BuddySingh>,
<ssramphal>
Cc: <mainlandgate>,
<ARAKEEB>,
<dollybhatt>,
<caesar_agustus>,
<darkzebra>,
<luncheon>,
<asankar>,
<GuyanaEmbassy>,
<guyanahcott>,
<info>,
<rhs950>,
<ROYDSINGH>,
<SSingh>,
<iharinam>
Date: Mon, 9 Feb
2004
Subject: Guyana Message-
Below is the rambling of a lunatic
who while the people of Guyana struggled for democratic freedom
lived lavishly in the USA. He did not solicit relief from the
administration, the same country that placed Guyana in the position
it found itself. This man did not lobby the British and other
foreign governments for intervention. In fact there is no record
that he even went to Guyana during the phase when so many observers (former
children of Guyana and foreign nationals) went there
under the threat of their lives to ensure that the ghosts of the
various funeral grounds did not arise and sign up on the electoral
list. He did not venture to Guyana to ensure the safety and sanctity
of free vote and the safe shipment of ballot boxes to prevent the
sudden birth of marked ballots or the use of UFOs who invisibly
inserted ballots wrapped in elastic (rubber
bands) in the sealed/locked ballot boxes.
Today he has the gall to lambaste the people
who fought for freedom and democracy. Where was he when the previous
administration literally wiped out the female
Indian population in their rush to create a nation of mixed race?
Where was he when the Indian population was almost wiped out? Where
was he when Indians sole voice were the freedom fighters led by -
Jagan, the Singh family ( Rajkumarie,
Balwant, Beni, Seo, Doodnath and others), the Ramsahoyes and
others?
Where was he when Ramphal
was establishing the rules to rob, rape
and plunder Indians. Where was he was Cammie Ramsaroop, Sasenarine
Singh, Deodat Sharma and others were aiding in the obliteration of
Indians?
Where was he when Indians were denied the
opportunity to get something simple as Dhal?
Once again I point out the fact that Indians do unto
themselves unlike what others do to them - in his zeal to get
position and power he will destroy those of his own kind. Dare we
compare what Guyana was prior to democracy? How come research fails
to show his name anywhere but now that democracy is there he is
jostling for a front seat?
Ram Singh
Article recently received:
Democracy? Ravi Dev for KN 12-21-03
The PPP likes to boast
that they brought back democracy to Guyana in 1992. A lot of
Guyanese however, are beginning to question as to what exactly is
the content of that 'democracy". It should have been obvious by
now that we have to be very wary when politicians use certain words.
Like Humptey Dumptey - they use words to mean whatever they want
them to mean. And they like to use words that we feel good about -
like "democracy". After all, we believe that democracy is
a good thing - a state where all of us have equal rights and where
all of us can be assured that our opinions will be taken into
account when decisions are made that touch our lives. That at least
is what we were told. But I guess that all of us have learnt by now
that we shouldn't believe everything we hear. At least when it comes
to "democracy" in Guyana. Many PPP acolytes would have
jumped up by now in righteous indignation and screamed, "Well
haven't we done better than the PNC?" Well yes, but that
doesn't mean that we have democracy in Guyana. There isn't a switch
that flips between "dictatorship" right into
"democracy". The road to democracy involves passing quite
a few milestones that are only glimmers on our horizons right now in
Guyana. One of the obstacles in the way of establishing democracy
here, is the simple truth that the PPP literally has a very
different view on what democracy is all about. The PPP, as a
Marxist-Leninist party dismisses, as irrelevant, the notion that we
should expect to have our opinions considered in the formulation of
national policies. This is all "bourgeois" nonsense. The
PPP believes in "democratic centralism" and in fact
asserts that this practice is the very highest form of democracy. In
this view, the vast majority of people don't know what they really
need - so how can they be trusted to make decisions about their
welfare. Decisions must be made by those who have mastered the
mysteries of Marx. These enlightened souls would be in possession of
the tools to discover the "truth" about any social
situation and so can best guide the rest of us mere benighted
mortals. The PPP mandarins, then, are the only ones qualified to
tell the ordinary folks how to feel and act in their everyday lives.
You should now understand why, even though the whole country has
been imploding under the wave of crime and terror unleashed after
the February 26th 2002 jailbreak, the
PPP is insisting that there is no "crisis" in Guyana.
Sadly, the PPP refuses to accept the fundamental truth that is the
foundation that all real democracy rests on - that man, by
definition, is imperfect and that, inevitably, the knowledge and
judgement of any man is imperfect. The corollary of this view is
that it is therefore to the benefit of all men that in the reaching
of decisions that will affect their particular group that the widest
possible agglomeration of views be solicited. The old truism
expresses this insight well - two heads are better than one. While
this route may hold up decisions a bit - in the long run, the bitter
experience and end of all dictatorships - including the Marxist ones
that fell in the nineties - should have taught us that this is the
safer path. In the Marxist-maligned "bourgeois"
democracies, where the party system has developed to represent
differing views on how the polity is to be governed, the principle
is enshrined in the phrase, auditur et altera pars - let the other
side be heard. The PPP, of course, dismisses all of this as stuff
and nonsense. Not surprisingly, it has resisted the implementation
of its own agreements to enlarge democracy in Guyana by making the
work of Parliament more "inclusive" through greater
involvement of the opposition. Its recalcitrance is excused by its
apologists, on the grounds that the PNC's record when they were in
Government, was even worse. Talk about abused children! All of this
comes to mind in the recent faux pas of the Fiscal Management and
Accountability Bill in Parliament. As I said in my remarks on the
floor of Parliament, the need for the bill couldn't have dropped
from the sky. The PPP knew of the World Bank's decision point
demands to secure the E-HIPC debt write-offs, for months now - the
Bill itself would have taken as long to craft. Yet the PPP refused
to alert the Parliamentary Management Committee that is the linchpin
of any claim to make the Parliament more "inclusive" and
more democratic. This Committee was informed so late as to give the
opposition just two working days to study a bill, which, by the
Government's boast is "comprehensive". Where is the spirit
of democracy? The PPP also refused to discuss the bill with the
newly constituted Economic Services Committee, one of the four
Sectoral Committees that are intended to allow Parliament to have an
"oversight" function over the Government's operations -
again to increase democracy. Ironically, the PPP had had been
haggling over the past few months over the lurid anti-Government
details of the World Bank's "Guyana Development Policy Review.
The report demanded, inter alia that the Government "continue
modernisation of budgeting and accounting systems (which was the
substance of the bill) and "ensure members of the National
Assembly ...are informed about commitments being negotiated with
international financial agencies in order to allow for timely debate
and discussion." The PPP has insisted that the laudable goals
of the bill should convince the opposition to overlook the lack of
consultation. But this old anti-democratic ploy that the ends
justify the means - when leaders have to make decisions "for
the good of the people" vitiates the very nature of democracy.
If this last incident was an exception one could have overlooked it.
But this is the pattern and practice of the PPP when it comes to
sharing information with the opposition and with others. And the
omission is even more egregious when one considers that in this
instance, since the Bill was in response to World Bank/IMF demands,
it was in the interest of all Guyanese for us to have the widest
possible national consensus. And it's not just the opposition - as
we implied, it has the same policy even with its most diehard
supporters - witness the Government's silence over its agreement
with the World Bank/IMF on the future of the sugar industry. It
doesn't appear that the PPP is willing to change its
"democratic centralism" spots. The question is, how long
will its supporters be willing to go along with, "big brother
knows best".
The upcoming challenge of
Moses Nagamootoo to have democratic
elections within the PPP may open some eyes. After all, doesn't
democracy have to begin at home?
