Guyana govt fall brings back memories of Bas

THE EDITOR: Reference is made to your editorial “Guyana in flux” (December 24) and news story on the collapse of the government in Guyana (December 23).

The collapse of the David Granger-led Guyana government brought back memories of the “fall” of the Basdeo Panday-led government in TT in October 2001.

Similar (corrupt) government accusations in both Caricom states led to the collapse of both governments, with one exception – Panday chose to dissolve Parliament and face the electorate while the Guyana APNU+AFC coalition decided to face a no-confidence motion confident it would win; it lost 32-33.

Granger is forced to hold elections as required by Westminster convention although word out of Guyana is the government is backpedaling on its commitment to honour the Westminster convention.

In Guyana, the government parliamentary defector, Charandass Persaud, was complaining for years about corruption and maladministration. Polls conducted by this writer in Guyana found widespread dissatisfaction over government’s handling of corruption and racism. But the government ignored the polls and Persaud, who was ignored and belittled.

He said he got fed up of being a “yes man” to government’s ill-advised policies including the firing of 7,000 sugar workers, who Persaud and his government colleagues promised to protect during the election campaign. Granger swore that no sugar worker would be fired and he promised them 20 per cent pay hike if elected.

Sugar workers provided the critical crossover racial votes that resulted in Granger’s presidency. Granger terminated 7,000 sugar workers as soon as he came into office and refused to grant the 20 per cent wage increase he promised.

Persaud also complained that Granger failed to honour a commitment to rice farmers of granting them $9,000 a bag for paddy. Instead, farmers saw prices drop from $7,000 a bag during the PPP government to less than $2,000 under the Granger government. Persaud decided to act against the Granger government, supporting an opposition motion of no confidence and bringing it down.

In TT, Ramesh Maharaj, Trevor Sudama, and Ralph Maraj complained against widespread corrupt practices in the UNC administration. Similar to Persaud in Guyana, these MPs of integrity, like Persaud, were ignored, and they decided to act against the Panday administration.

But unlike in Guyana, the Panday government did not face a no-confidence motion and his majority was not threatened until he decided to expel his own Members of Parliament, resulting in a minority of 16 out of 36 MPs. Instead of compromising with his three defector MPs and remain in office, Panday dissolved the assembly, gambling on a new election and lost one seat, resulting in a tied 18-18 election.

He was ill-advised by sycophants to agree that President Arthur NR Robinson would choose the prime minister when Panday, as the incumbent, should inevitably have led the government. Robinson chose Patrick Manning, putting Panday in the cold never to see office again.

The lesson of both cases: had Panday and Granger in Guyana acted against widespread corruption and abusive practices, they would have retained their majorities and the support of the population. They both blew it.

DR VISHNU BISRAM

political scientist