The most vicious writers are the ghost bloggers

Dear Editor,
I share the central views expressed in Emile Mervin’s letter captioned, “Anonymous letter writers who bash writers focus on personalities instead of issues”, published in Kaieteur News, 1 September, 2010.  I would like to further state that ghost writers must be censored when they openly attack writers’ personalities, who use their own names.
I have been a victim of this sort of consorted attack by ghost writers mainly supporters or allegedly paid agents of the Jagdeo regime. Unlike Emile, I happen to live in Guyana and participate actively in political and economic live that are specific to my family’s tradition. I came into political activity through the ranks of the PPP and actively engaged in the national struggles against British colonial rule and then the PNC.
As an regular letter writer, I am mainly concerned with the issues that affect our daily lives and pay little interest in personalities, except when they engage in corrupt practices that affect the community or the nation.
I respect every Guyanese and I strongly defend the right of people to hold views and opinion and to express themselves in the strongest possible way. I have clashed many times with Mr. Emile on the Venezuelan question and other Western style politics, but I know little or nothing of his personal life and I am not aware that he engages in activities that are knowingly destructive and I stay very far from such an approach.
I would venture to state that the most vicious writers have been the ghost blog the most vicious writers have been the ghost bloggers, who openly defend the Jagdeo regime and viciously attack anti-Jagdeo regime writers. There seem to be a consorted effort by a clique in the Jagdeo administration, whose job is to target particular writers. This a clear sign that the regime is extremely desperate since the criticisms leveled against it (the regime) is having a serious effect on its credibility and survival. Sources close to the regime has disclosed some of the personalities involved in some of these merciless attacks and Mervin Emile is correct stating its main aim is to destroy the AFC, which seem to be bringing together people of different races, as the WPA did during the 1970’s and the 1980’s.
The greatest fear of the PNC and the PPP has been the unity of the races, since their continued existence is wholly dependent on one race group or the other. One may disagree with the lack of clarity of the AFC in the articulation of its policies and programme, but one thing is clear – it is galvanizing support across the country among people in all walks of life, and that terrifies the reactionary factions within the two traditional parties, the PPP and the PNC.
The word change has struck an instinctive cord among most Guyanese, especially the working class, who is slowly becoming an underclass. That the AFC is taking the coveted position of the WPA is unquestionable. The WPA has the potential, but they are not prepared to do that systematic and painstaking work that was done in the past.
David Hinds and others have taken an incorrect approach to the current political situation in Guyana and this has led to a level of desperation to try and gain grounds and consequently “the unholy alliance” with the Robert Corbin leadership of the PNCR and alienating its core support in Guyana and internationally. Many of us feel that Walter Rodney had died in vain when we see the unconditional relationship between the current leadership of the PNCR and the WPA. I have challenged this approach and I am still awaiting a private or public response. I do not understand the uncompromising attack on the PPP, as a party, and the “hanging on the coat tail” approach towards the Robert Corbin faction of the PNCR. Politics and life itself is not black and white and we cannot approach things in this way. The WPA at this moment offers no scientific guide or analysis regarding the fundamental problems facing Guyana and the world. There are individuals within that party who express what I consider their own views in the press and media, which are not consistent and are largely misunderstood by the masses of people. The clearest example is the outburst of David Hinds, who is not well positioned to make such statements, since he is absent from the country and do not feel the daily pains of our people.
Jinnah Rahman