guyana chronicle letter November 9, 2017

  

Dear Editor,
I WRITE this letter to correct Kaieteur News columnist, “Peeping Tom”, on two matters he raised in his column of November 6th.2017, under the caption, “Discrediting the Carter Formula.”

In the article referred to, the “Peeper” castigated Dr. David Hinds on Hinds’s declared position that the Carter formula was intended as a “stop-gap measure” for the 1992 elections. Hinds’s observation was carried in the Guyana Chronicle on November 5th 2017, in his “Hinds Sight” column that appeared under the caption, “Time to scrap the Carter formula.”

With a revisionist brush, “Peeping Tom,” sought to rewrite history by implying in his column that Hinds’s position was based on a fallacy. The “Peeper’s” intervention is intended to educate readers on Dr. Hinds’s alleged false and partisan position, in relation to the introduction and purpose of the Carter formula. If truth be told, the “Peeper’s” exhortation on this matter is nothing but an “illusion”. Hinds is correct in stating that the agreement was not envisaged as a permanent measure. If the “Peeper” had taken the time to check, he would have discovered that all of the parties in the political landscape at that time understood that the matter would be revisited and new arrangements were to be put in place before the next General and Regional Elections. It was the two main political parties, PPP/C and PNCR that gave the Carter formula permanence.

The second issue raised by Tom is his erroneous contention that comrade David Hinds, “… was not part of the local political landscape in the run-up to the 1992 general elections in Guyana.” If it is “Peeping Tom’s” contention that Hinds, who was a functioning WPA executive member at that time, as he is now, though out of Guyana but in constant contact with the party and in the process, making valuable contributions on the evolution of the WPA’s election campaign, should not now be considered as being part of the “local political landscape” at the time of the introduction of the Carter formula, then his delusionary state is greater than I had originally thought it is.

Over the years in the WPA’s Executive Committee, brother Rupert Roopnaraine had advocated the need to revisit the Carter formula. Roopnaraine had always reminded the executive that Carter’s formula was never intended to be a permanent arrangement and it had outlived its usefulness. I submit here in conclusion that, in my opinion, it has been a grave political mistake on the part of the two major parties not to honour the agreement to scrap the Carter formula and replace it with a more acceptable arrangement for appointing the chairperson for the Guyana Elections Commission.
Regards
Tacuma Ogunseye