More theories from Raphael Trotman

Raphael Trotman is not Clement Rohee. You don’t take on Rohee because you know Rohee cannot influence even school children with his inelegant semantics. Raphael Trotman is not Manzoor Nadir whom Guyanese view with disdain. Raphael Trotman is not Bibi Shadick whom Guyanese people will instantly dismiss.
Trotman has far more credibility than those PPP names mentioned above. He was the co-founder of the widely popular and respected party, the Alliance for Change. He was the Speaker of the House. He has status in Guyana. When someone like Trotman makes profound statements, given the large percentage of young people in Guyana, he can influence them.
For this reason, when Trotman opens his mouth and speaks misleading things that can be described as crass rhetoric, he should be confronted by those who think his words are harmful to the nurturing of democracy in this tragic land. I have had cause to criticize this crass rhetoric before and I will single out one particular, egregious example.
This particular situation has led me to conclude that many persons in the PNC who knew Trotman well and described him as opportunistic and politically dishonest were right. Last year, Trotman singled out Gail Teixeira as the parliamentarian that “raised the bar” of parliamentary standards.
I would single out five politicians in the entire history of the PPP that have never been INTERESTED in raising any kind of standards because they are the most close-minded and Stalinist in their political behaviour. They are in the following order – Mrs. Janet Jagan, Gail Teixeira, Clinton Collymore, Roger Luncheon and Clement Rohee. With Mrs. Jagan out of the way, Teixeira heads the list as the PPP’s most implacable leader. Ms. Teixeira makes Bharrat Jagdeo look like Don Quixote.
Mr. Trotman had his reason for the description he made of Teixeira and I would go so far to say it as an unholy reason. Now Trotman is at it again. In an interview with the Stabroek News, he said the PPP will not open up to the opposition because the opposition threatens the PPP leadership with jail if the PPP loses power. He went on to state that you have to let the PPP know that it is normal to give up power but if you threaten them that is a different story.
This analysis of the PPP is so flawed that Trotman’s motive should be questioned. After twenty-two years in power, a ruling cabal that has refused to make even the most tame and innocuous concessions and has been engaged in corruption never before seen in any of the countries in the Americas except Mexico, Mr. Trotman feels that this cabal can REDEEMitself if the opposition treats it softly and do not make threats of what it will do if it wins power.
The reply to Troman is simple, because Trotman’s polemic is founded on children’s lollipop. There would have been no positive movement towards reconciliation on the part of the PPP even if the opposition had announced “a let bygone be bygone” policy.
The PPP can be likened to the American Republican Party. The Republican Party has some core beliefs that will not change – American global power is good for the world and if going to war to keep it has to be, then so be it; the state should play a very minor role in the economy; private business is the core value of American civilization; the state should not assist the poor – hard work will take people out of poverty; genders are naturally unequal; non-white people are not equal to the Caucasian race.
You cannot change a Republican from those beliefs. You cannot change a PPP leader from the grand belief started by its founders that the party is special, is a unique historical force, is loved by the Guyanese people, and it is the best party to make Guyana a great country.
No amount of sycophancy, no amount of soft politics from opposition parties will get the PPP to pursue policies that others want that the PPP feel didn’t originate from the PPP itself.
Analytically, it is correct to say that at the psychological level, the PPP found the 2011 election results to be a bizarre accident and not a logical sociological outcome of changing times and shifting demographics.
It couldn’t recognize an opposition controlled House because the majority victory of the opposition was not natural; it was a freak accident. The PPP will not make even the smallest of concessions as in its refusal with the location of the 1823 monument site.  Does Raphael Trotman really know the PPP or does he have an ulterior motive?