RACIST BUXTONIANS!
Kwayana’s is revealing a tendency to malice, never before seen
I have submitted twice in these columns since Mingo’s ugly and graphic rigging of the 2020 election that the subsequent crisis has become one of the most priceless events that occurred in Guyana because it yielded a goldmine of revelations from which the current and subsequent generations will be better informed about the Guyanese character.
For three months the world has witnessed one of history’s most rigged general elections in which words like “evil”, “macabre”, “bizarre” and “ghoulish” do not fully adequately provide the world with the factual dimensions; there aren’t such words.
When in history has a party in a national election claimed victory and after three months refused to provide even one piece of paper to prove its victory? After three months, not even one statement of poll has been released by the APNU+AFC leadership that has been in their possession since the night of March 2.
In this journey of Guyana’s self-destruction, many who dwell among us have been exposed as destructive people, uncaring about their own country whose population is defined as having seventy five percent of citizens under the age of 40 and half of that population as below 25 years.
Someone like Eusi Kwayana (who has lived outside of Guyana for a considerable number of years) is one of those persons who fought for free and fair election from 1968-1992. Mr. Kwayana would have seen first-hand how biased and unprofessional Harold Bollers, the chairman of the elections commission, was in those times.
I saw first-hand the horrible mal-administration of Bollers but I say in all honesty; anyone who lived under Bollers and Claudette Singh and could give Singh a pass grade and treat her as a better administrator than Bollers is a person guilty of malice. Never before in the electoral history of the Caricom region, has another country produced a Claudette Singh. Mr. Kwayana has a published letter on me in yesterday’s edition of this newspaper, titled, “Mr. Kissoon is revealing a tendency to malice that I never detected before.” I would like Mr. Kwayana to know that the feeling is mutual.
I believe I have seen snippets of malice in him from his poor defence of Singh and his evasive willingness to comment directly on Guyana’s most rigged elections since independence. I say unapologetically, Kwayana’s positive words on Singh is a betrayal of everything Walter Rodney stood for. Kwayana, perhaps like all his colleagues in and out of Guyana, in the Walter Rodney movement (I chose that appellation instead of Working People’s Alliance, a name that is now leprous), has denigrated the beauty of Walter Rodney.
This exchange with Mr. Kwayana all started when I detected that malice as contained in the following words of his; “I for one, consider it unhelpful to prattle about facts I do not have…the impressions I am getting are not founded on facts that may pass my own test…I cannot pretend to be unaffected by the statement of (Singh) that she intended to deliver to the public a valid election. I have often wondered to what extent those who appealed to her public spiritedness…have taken the necessary steps to support her started aspirations. I am in no hurry, as Mr. Kissoon seems to be, to pass judgment on the brief incumbency of the Chairperson of Guyana’s Election Commission”. The above were the words of Kwayana more than two months after Singh proved that Bollers was an angel compared to her.
Now three months after Singh’s deportment was laid bare for the world to see Kwayana writes again. I ask readers to note the time of three months. Here is Kwayana again; “I also remember wondering whether the officials responsible for appointing her had taken the trouble to ensure the respective bodies of supporters to act in such a way as not to frustrate the aspirations of the GECOM head for a fair election. The whole commission is acting in relation to the March 2 Elections in a very charged local and international atmosphere. My fear is that Freddie Kissoon may prejudice the chairperson’s reputation by selecting me, a 95 year old activist with a lot of baggage, as a supporter of this official.”
The tendency to malice by Eusi Kwayana is here for everyone to see. It is not party supporters that detracted from Singh’s aspirations to have a free poll. It is Singh herself that calls into question if she ever had such aspirations. Maybe Kwayana can tell us what reputation of Singh he is referring to. I end where I began; this election has shown us what some people are made of that we thought we knew so much of.
(The views expressed in this article are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the opinions of this newspaper.)