Dear Editor,

In all fairness to David Hinds, who feels PNC/R Leader, Mr. Robert Corbin, has "made some important gestures," (September 11), by speaking out against attacks on Indians and calling for shared governance with the PPP/C, I think he scored some interesting points. However, I think he missed a vital point about the PPP/C's apparent "stubbornness" and its failure to recognize that the power it is "afraid to lose is not theirs; it belongs to all of Guyana."

On the latter point, the PPP/C earned its prize - holding legitimate power - in a straight fight with the PNC, and it really should not be intimidated or cajoled into granting the PNC/R governance concessions simply because the PNC/R and others may think it is the best thing to do to save Guyana. And from what precisely does Guyana need to be saved? External circumstances that mitigate against Guyana's economic survival or national security, which is understandable, or deadly violence by a handful of thugs, which is a recipe for disaster? From cursory observations, the latter seems to be the one.

The PPP/C's reaction to the PNC/R to-date also has nothing to do with the former being stubborn. If the PNC/R wants power, whether exclusively or to share, it has to go about this the right way. But judging from all that went down from 1992 to now, it has failed to present itself as a trustworthy partner in any shared governance deal. It has also failed to present itself as a changed party based on strategy and attitude so that it might win over Indians who are disenchanted with the PPP/C, thereby making it a viable independent contender for office.

During the 28 years the PNC was in power, 24 of those years it was there illegally. And even though the PPP knew it had a majority support base in the Indian community that would have allowed it to easily win in a free and fair election, it opted for a high road and settled for constructive criticisms and boycotts of parliament. Talk about discrimination and marginalization, Indians can tell blacks a thing or two about these. Yet, none of the PPP's criticisms ever led to Indians picking up assault weapons and attacking, raping or killing blacks in the name of marginalization or discrimination during those 28 years. In fact, it was the Burnham regime that used violence and intimidatory tactics against opponents.

Today, with the PNC/R on the outside, it, not blacks, is hollering and screaming marginalization and discrimination, and how there is now need for shared governance. But how can the PNC/R expect, after shutting out the PPP for 28 years, that in 12 years, the PPP/C should open up its doors to accommodate the PNC/R?

Worse, how can the PNC/R, knowing it wanted to share power following its 1992 defeat, appeal to the lowest form of human indignity by creating an atmosphere in which one race is attacked by another race, in the hope the attacks will make it look strong and serious, and the effects of said attacks should be used as a negotiating tool for extracting power sharing concessions from the PPP/C?

In addition, after doing its utmost to "make Guyana ungovernable," and watching quietly from the sidelines as Indians were beaten, raped, killed and suffered millions of dollars in property damage, how can the PNC be so bold as to now want to share power? Simply put: how can it be trusted after all of that?

The PPP displayed amazing patience for 28 years. The PNC/R, which has been out of office for 12 years, is in a big rush for shared governance. Is the PNC impatient because its leader has a personal goal to achieve and feels time is not on his side? Or is it that the party, built to suit the personal ambitions of its Founder-Leader, is fresh out of creative ideas to ensure its continuity as a legitimate contender for office?

In 1964, the PPP won the election, but a strategic thinking Burnham reached out to the UF and displaced the PPP. Isn't there another political party or civil society group Mr. Corbin can reach out to in 2004 to help displace the PPP/C in 2006? Creativity and risks are not for the faint of heart in a politically competitive environment.

Incidentally, has it ever dawned on the PNC/R that for as long as it portrays itself as representing blacks, it has sealed its fate? Because that is exactly the thought process of the PPP/C concerning Indians, and these diametrically opposing racial interests are responsible for racial voting patterns that allow Indians, who outnumber blacks, to vote "against" the PNC/R.

What's the solution? The truth is, there is no short cut that would guarantee a resolution to the impasse between the PPP/ C and the PNC/R. But seeing the PPP/C is locked in to power based on racial voting patterns, it is the PNC/R which has its work cut out.

In closing, let me underline that I have my gripes with the PPP/C and wish it would have done a whole lot better than seeking to settle for an annoyingly cautious approach to turning around Guyana's fortunes.

After twenty-eight years on the outside, I thought it would have come in and do exactly opposite to what the PNC did, especially in several self-serving areas. But, as Freddie Kissoon said in a recent Kaieteur News column, there was no change, only an exchange.

And what is sad is, there are Guyanese who still do not grasp the enormity of Guyana's potential, perhaps like Jimmy Carter has, and are therefore prepared to settle for the snail's pace progress the government is turning out, even boasting that things are better now than in 1992.

But is this the best Guyana can do? Or can Guyana do better with a more adventurous visionary who is prepared to take calculated risks and blaze new trails for Guyana to greatly succeed instead of to merely survive?

Yours faithfully,

Emile Mervin,