Dear Editor,

The long anticipated statement by the PPP in response to what I have been writing is a disappointment. Instead of dealing with the issues which I have highlighted, which are of great concern to the people of Guyana and members and supporters of the PPP, it has chosen the well worn path of personal abuse. The leadership of the PPP has lost its will, its creative and dynamic impulses and the capacity of constructive discourse. It is suffering from incumbency fatigue. It has grown tired.

I am not the PPP’s problem. I am only the messenger. Since the PPP chooses to attack the messenger, rather than deal with the message, all the Guyanese electorate can look forward to in the future is more of the political chaos that now prevails.

This was demonstrated by the recent fiasco in Parliament and petulance over the local government and hydro legislation which amply exposes their continuing and abysmal incapacity and failure to deal with issues of national importance. The PPP is the Government. The Government was elected to deliver services and programmes, not to gain oneupmanship, make excuses and hurl epithets about the Opposition’s behaviour.

Now for some of the issues raised.

If my departure was as “inexplicable as it was sudden” and “feigning great intolerance” I walked out and resigned, the PPP should explain the statement set out below by Ms Gail Teixeira prefaced with an attached note that says – “ please find attached my mea culpa letter which I drafted over the weekend… I will have no hesitation in saying, once it will not exacerbate the situation, that I have no objection to it being shared with Comrade Ralph -:” “Dear Ralph, the June 30 2012 Executive committee meeting will go down in our party annals as a painful and emotional one… I regret that my remarks offended you and I apologized then and I apologize in this letter again to you… I understand how frustrated you are about many issues…”

Doesn’t “annals” mean historical records? Isn’t Ms. Teixeira  saying that the meeting at which I was kicked out was one of the most painful and emotional in the Party’s history? Doesn’t an acknowledgement that I  was frustrated about many issues contradict the assertion that my departure was inexplicable or sudden or that I feigned great intolerance? If not, the public awaits the PPP’s analysis of what Ms Teixeira meant.

Ms Teixeira sent a hard copy of the letter two or three weeks after the event. It was declined, being too little, too late and tainted with insincerity. That is what the PPP refers to as a “rude rejection” of an apology.

Based on any rational understanding of what Ms Teixeira meant, it can only be concluded that  when the PPP talked about “inexplicable,” “sudden” and “feigning,” it was lying. The public, Party members and supporters can therefore safely assume that there is much else in its statement that it is lying about. The tactics of abuse and lies are now well honed weapons in the armory of the PPP. The public could not have forgotten that less than two weeks ago I exposed a false attempt to accuse me of being responsible for the amendment to the Procurement Bill to remove Cabinet no objection.

In relation to the “unacceptable revelations,” for which the PPP had to dip sixteen years, as far back as 1997,  into its “annals”, I invite the PPP to inform the public as follows: what were the unacceptable revelations, who made them, what was the evidence produced in support of them, were the “unacceptable revelations” investigated, was I found guilty and if so, what sanctions were imposed? If this information in its entirety is published, I publicly declare that I will forego legal proceedings for defamation, in the event that the revelations are defamatory.

If the  PPP has difficulty recalling the 1997 meeting with exactitude, I have virtually verbatim notes of the meeting and would be willing to share them. If the PPP refuses, then the only conclusion would be that this is a cowardly attempt to smear me with the same type of lies exposed above, from events as far back as sixteen years ago, which involved a fierce, desperate and eventually successful effort to defeat the nomination of me by Mrs Janet Jagan as the presidential candidate which she was persuaded to take herself against her better judgment. That full story remains to be told and I will tell it.

I am accused of not raising the issue of corruption in my internal Party statement advocating my candidacy for the presidential nomination, the whole process of which was a charade designed to glorify and to disguise a fait accompli. The PPP clearly forgot my 2010 article published in the Mirror and Chronicle calling for additional steps to deal with corruption. It was probably because most of the leadership do not read the Mirror and Chronicle that I wasn’t kicked out then. How can an accusation of silence on the issue of corruption stand scrutiny when I was literally kicked out of the PPP because I raised the issue? And how can such an accusation be sustained when in late 2010 or early 2011 in an interview on Plain Talk, which was widely publicised, I said that dealing with corruption  would be my number one priority, if I received the Party’s nomination and was elected?

In addition, the atmosphere of intolerance from the early 2000s, and especially after 2006, was so pronounced that no one, and that means no one, including Mrs Jagan who was publicly ridiculed by then President Jagdeo, who attempted to denigrate her as a private citizen when she criticised the withdrawal of government ads to Stabroek News, dared to raise any criticism or negative issue unless one was prepared for a tongue lashing. Several comrades courageously raised the issue of corruption again and again but were always overwhelmed by hostility or the next best thing – silence.

This was not the only reason. The leadership cabal ensured that the issue of corruption was taken off the Party’s agenda. In response to the growing cancer of corruption and public criticism, the PPP established an Anti-Corruption Committee shortly after the 2001 elections,  led by Mrs Janet Jagan. Its first act was to investigate an allegation of corruption against a senior Party organizer. He was found guilty. The General Secretary, Mr Donald Ramotar, now President, adamantly refused to dismiss him or to take any other disciplinary steps against him. Mrs Jagan refused to convene the Anti-Corruption Committee again until disciplinary steps were taken against the organiser. None  was ever taken.

The Anti-Corruption Committee never met again. The organizer has since been promoted. On many occasions questions were publicly asked about this committee.

This is the explanation of why it became defunct.

The post-Cheddi Jagan PPP does not now have, nor has ever had, any intention of dealing with corruption, either in its ranks or anywhere else.

If what I say is not true, then let President Ramotar who in December, 2009, said that he was upset with the non-establishment of the Public Procurement Commission (KN July 12 “A major Flip-Flop&rdquo, without making any qualification about Cabinet no objection, prove me wrong by fulfilling his implied promise to establish the PPC. I will join with the rest of the country in hailing his self extrication from his straight jacket and assertion of his independence.

The Party leadership is destroying the PPP and tarnishing its great image and ideals which thousands of dedicated comrades have given much to sustain.

It has driven and is driving many comrades away in circumstances which are deeply painful, which I will fully reveal in my article next week. Instead of sharing responsibility for governance with the Opposition, it is handing the country over in its entirety to the Opposi-tion on a platter. It should consider steps which will bring back those comrades, retrieve its stature of the past and the respect and esteem in which it has once been held by peopleeverywhere. Unless it does so, it will soon be out of office, still spitting and sputtering abuse against the  messengers and everyone else, except itself!

Yours faithfully, Ralph Ramkarran