BY: CLEMENT J. ROHEE
Vincent Alexander’s letter of Saturday July 18, published in three of the dailies is indicative of the strategic thinking by the three plus seven cabal.
By now, Alexander’s letter must have set off alarm bells in certain quarters nationally and internationally.
If it didn’t, then it means we have become so numbed and traumatized by a combination of elections fatigue and the vagaries of the COVID-19 lockdown, that we have either failed or are not alert enough to recognize the coded message Alexander’s letter is telegraphing to the nation.
Published on July 18, the day the world observed ‘Mandela Day,’ Alexander’s letter stands out in stark contrast to what this South African giant of a man sought to instill in the thoughts and actions of mankind;
“It is not our diversity which divide us; nor our ethnicity, or religion or culture that divides us…there can only be one division amongst us: those who cherish democracy and those who do not.”
Mandela’s message to humanity is relevant to Guyana’s present day situation. There is no need for further elaboration.
Addressing the editors of the three dailies, in the opening paragraph of his letter, Alexander reveals his disdain for freedom of expression and public opinion;
‘I find no comfort in discourse in the Letters’ Column since it is often used to personalize issues as well as to spew dogma and subjectively pontificate.’
I concede that Alexander is entitled to his view on this particular matter but that doesn’t mean he’s right in categorizing the letter columns in such a nasty way as he did.
Alexander’s comments are not only disparaging of letter writers, they are the antithesis of freedom of expression and smack of an open resentment of letter writers.
Alexander’s resentment of letter writers aside, the most troubling thing in his letter is to be found in the last paragraph where he wrote:
‘There is a song sheet out there that reminds me of the Weapons of Mass Destruction that was the reason for the invasion of Iraq. Alas, no such weapons were found or evidence of their existence. But regime change was achieved; thousands were killed and Iraq is yet to return to stability and civility.’
This is a case of both the message and the messenger. The two are inextricably linked.
We know the messenger, he has long been established as the boundary marker for the APNU+ AFC at GECOM.
And the message/narrative here is clear; no electoral fraud, call it WMD, has been perpetrated by the ruling coalition administration. Therefore, the call for regime change viz; for the Granger-led coalition administration to ‘step aside’ is misguided.
Thus, as Alexander’s narrative goes, any outside intervention; read statements and visa restrictions, aimed at bringing about regime change in Guyana, if successful, would come at a heavy price.
This gloomy and implicitly destructive vision of Guyana’s future, were the APNU+AFC not allowed to get away with the rape of democracy in Guyana, should be viewed as a declaration of strategic intent by one of the more vocal and high profile representatives of those who doggedly cling to state power in Guyana.