May 02, 2017 Features / Columnists, Freddie Kissoon

The National Executive Committee of the Alliance For Change (AFC) met in Linden on Saturday and subsequently told the nation that it has birthed a Cummingsburg Accord Review Committee (CARC). The accompanying press statement is interesting and intriguing. It says; “Given that we are approaching our second anniversary in government it presents an opportune time to engage in reflection and commence an early process of thorough, comprehensive and necessary review of the Cummingsburg Accord with a view to strengthening, updating and broadening the agreement as we look towards upcoming elections in two and three years’ time.”
frddie3When people like Dr. David Hinds and I pointed out the mistakes the AFC was making one year into its tenure in office, we were abused in PPP-like style by the AFC’s leaders. On an interview programme with host, Christopher Ram, it was said that David and I are criticizing the AFC because the only reason that could be offered is that we want to bring back the PPP into power.
It was a morally repugnant descent into PPP-like philistine behaviour and a politically sick statement. But it had its laughable dimension. No one, not even one person in the AFC leadership, felt the brunt of the PPP’s assault on me. Yet the AFC announced that I, along with David Hinds, wanted to bring the PPP back into power.
They say two mountains do not meet but two persons do. David Hinds and I will one day be in the crowd when AFC leaders are persuading voters, and we will ask those voters if they think we want to bring the PPP back into power. But here is the thing – PPP leaders perhaps have more fondness for AFC leaders than they will ever have for me. Based on that logic, AFC leaders would more welcome the PPP back in power. As it stands, the leader of the PPP, Bharrat Jagdeo has an ongoing libel suit against me.
In announcing CARC, one would have thought that the AFC would have done the decent thing and told the people of Guyana that on reflection it apologizes for its poisonous criticism of those who supported the election of the AFC during the 2015 general elections. But we have a political culture in this country in which the words, “I apologize” are virtually impossible to come out of the mouth of ruling politicians. What is even more frightening is that these very ruling politicians, when in opposition, would have decried the immoral conduct of the PPP leaders of refusing to acknowledge when they made mistakes.
An icon like David Hinds was reminded by the AFC, in a press release, that he should be grateful he now has freedom to criticize the government, meaning that the AFC in power is the reason why David can now open his mouth. What a shameless act of disgust. When David Hinds was fighting for the freedoms the Guyanese people were denied, with the exception of Moses Nagamootoo, none of the AFC leaders were courageous enough to even give off a whisper of descent against the Burnham and Hoyte presidencies.
David is still to receive an apology from the AFC. The same with me.
The AFC issued a press statement accusing me of asserting that President Granger arrogated to himself the right as President to appoint his son-in-law, the Business Minister, and two other Ministers from within the hierarchy of the AFC. I made no such assertion. I merely quoted in a column, the words to that effect of AFC leader, Raphael Trotman.
What is most morally morbid is that many in the leadership of the AFC were there, sitting right next to Trotman, when Trotman made the statement, including the AFC’s PR Tsar, Imran Khan. But back to CARC.
In a follow-up column I will offer one thorny issue that is mentally devastating the AFC, thus the demand to renegotiate the Cummingsburg Accord. But the seminal question is why, and what is it that the AFC wants to renegotiate. Let us leave out the thorny issue I mentioned above; that is for a separate column.
One motive comes easily to mind; there are many egregious policies of the Coalition that have virtually alienated the support base of the AFC, with the fear of AFC’s leaders that such alienation makes the resuscitation of the AFC impossible. VAT on education had the collaboration of most AFC leaders when it was discussed in Cabinet. Then the AFC bolted from its partner, APNU, when like the parking meter issue, the issue attracted emotional rage in the society. More on the AFC’s desperation to survive in forthcoming columns.