Opposition blasts Ramotar’s comments on LEAD Project

President Donald Ramotar’s recent pronouncements on the controversial US Leadership and Democracy project (LEAD) have come under fire from the combined opposition. The President reportedly said that with respect to the LEAD project “We don’t need it in our country”.

Leader of APNU David Granger

Leader of the opposition coalition, A Partnership for National Unity (APNU), retired Brig David Granger articulated that the line taken by the President is not one that APNU would take. According to Granger, he is aware that the US LEAD project was agreed to by Government five years ago and while the content of the agreement was not made available to him he got the impression that the two sides were in negotiation. “I was very surprised at the line taken because this was an agreement that had been reached between two sides.” He said that obviously that agreement was changed afterwards. “As far as I can say I was involved in a limited extent and was aware that the LEAD project was involved in public information for young people.” Granger said that he was present at the seminar which was about disseminating information of the local government system, which is a very complex process. It would have benefited the populous greatly. “I am sure if you stop someone in the street [that person] wouldn’t be able to tell you how the local government elections would be conducted with 71 different elections and a dual system, first Past the Post and Proportional Representation. “So my own involvement in the programme led me to believe that it was a very useful programme and it should be continued.” Granger did not want to comment on the other aspect of the programme but said that if government enters an agreement it should stick to the agreement. “If the government is committed to negotiations, I don’t see why the negotiation must be terminated or why Mr. Glenn Bradbury’s work permit had to be revoked. It’s quite strange to me because I felt that the young people were benefiting from the LEAD programme; I felt it was an extreme measure which was completely unnecessary at this point in time. “You expel people for treason and other serious crimes; I didn’t feel the time had come to expel Mr. Bradbury by having his work permit terminated.” Bradbury is the Principal Official of the International Republican Institute which is contracted by USAID to implement the LEAD Project. His permit was recently revoked by Government who citied immigration improprieties. Leader of the Alliance for Change (AFC), Khemraj Ramjattan posited that the statement that the President made to the LEAD project speaks to the “retrograde steps being taken by the government to push out almost all reasonable access to better training, reasonable access to funding for the strengthening of democracy where it is more needed namely the youths, the women and the Parliament itself.” He said that the other aspect of that LEAD project had to do with local democracy and raising the awareness of the people who are the electorate. According to Ramjattan, “How could you in your right mind ever be critical of funding that is going towards youth and women training and capital projects in the Parliament in relation to very good programmes and local democracy at the local government elections?” He continued that there is no place in the 2014 scenario for such posturing to take place.

Leader of the AFC Khemraj Ramjattan

According to Ramjattan, the reason behind Government’s actions is because it wants “to control the substantial majority of the Guyanese by not wanting them to think democratically and see what is better governance than what they are providing and that is why they have condemned this project although they had signed on to it initially. “The government does not want Guyanese to evolve into thinking minds. It would like them to remain in that state where they are where they are not going to act rationally, especially during elections time. “That is what (government) wants so that it will still carry on this pattern of emotive voting rather than issues based voting,” said Ramjattan. In a statement, Ambassador Brent Hardt said that Guyana’s action is contrary to the understanding that the two countries undertook with respect to the said project. He outlined that the project is designed to benefit the Government and people of Guyana through the promotion of understanding and consensus-building within the National Assembly; greater citizen engagement within Parliament; civic education on local government; and greater civic engagement among women and youth.