Dear Editor,
The decision by Wayne Mason to engage with the leadership of the People’s Progressive Party/Civic and express a willingness to contribute to the development of Georgetown and Guyana deserves more than the usual partisan reaction. It deserves serious political reflection.
Mr Mason may not have occupied the highest offices of Government, but those familiar with the political machinery of the former PNCR know that political influence is not measured by titles alone. He was a committed activist, organiser, and mobiliser – one of those persons upon whom a political organisation depends to maintain its strength at the grassroots.
I knew him from that period. He chaired one of the strongest party groups, the only group larger than the one I led, and was consistently present when the party required organisation and political activism in Georgetown and elsewhere.
That history makes his present engagement with the PPP/C politically significant. I can hear the names: house slave, soup drinker, slave catcher, dog, and all the others we all heard time and again.
But the fundamental question should therefore not be one of insult or condemnation. It should be: Why are individuals who once vigorously opposed the PPP/C now prepared to work with it?
That question becomes even more relevant when other political alternatives, including the new main Opposition movement called WIN (no pun intended), are available.
Part of the answer, in my view, lies in the transformation taking place within the PPP/C itself.
Under President Dr Mohamed Irfaan Ali and General Secretary Dr Bharrat Jagdeo, the PPP/C has deliberately sought to broaden its political and social reach beyond its traditional constituencies. It is increasingly presenting itself not simply as a party seeking electoral support across ethnic communities but as a national political organisation in which Guyanese of different backgrounds can participate.
That distinction is important.
Guyana’s political history has too often encouraged the assumption that ethnicity determines political allegiance. But a modern democracy cannot mature if citizens are expected to inherit political loyalties because of their race, community, or family history.
Political support should be earned through leadership, performance, policies, and the confidence people have in a Government’s direction.
The PPP/C Government has provided citizens with something tangible against which it can be judged: its record in office, its development agenda, and the implementation of many of the commitments upon which it sought an electoral mandate. People can see roads, bridges, housing development, hospitals, schools, free tertiary education, improved financial grants, community investments, and expanding economic opportunities.
They may debate the pace, priorities, and effectiveness of particular policies, as citizens should, but there is an identifiable national development programme underway.
There is another dimension that should not be underestimated: the PPP/C leadership’s political maturity, which requires the capacity to welcome yesterday’s opponents as today’s partners.
If someone who once criticised the PPP/C is prepared to work constructively for Guyana’s development, that person’s past Opposition does not permanently disqualify him or her from contributing. A governing party aspiring to become genuinely national must be sufficiently confident to accommodate people who did not historically belong to it.
I understand this personally.
My own political journey has taught me that changing one’s political position does not automatically mean abandoning one’s principles. Sometimes circumstances change. Leadership changes. Parties change. Governments evolve. And individuals have a responsibility to reassess where they believe they can most effectively contribute to their communities and country.
The appropriate test is therefore not, “Who did you support yesterday?”
It should be, “What are you prepared to contribute to Guyana tomorrow?”
This is why Mr Mason’s engagement should cause political parties across Guyana to reflect rather than ridicule. When experienced grassroots activists who once stood firmly against the PPP/C become willing to engage with it, that development warrants examination.
No political party owns any ethnic group, community, or individual. Neither African Guyanese, Indo-Guyanese, Indigenous Guyanese, nor any other section of our society should be treated as inherited political property.
President Ali’s emphasis on One Guyana, coupled with the PPP/C leadership’s effort to attract people from outside its traditional political base, represents an opportunity to weaken those historical boundaries. Whether that transformation ultimately succeeds will be judged by how genuinely inclusive governance remains and whether opportunities and development continue to reach Guyanese regardless of ethnicity, geography, or previous political affiliation.
That is the standard to which the Government should be held.
The significance of people such as Wayne Mason choosing engagement, therefore, extends beyond one individual. It points toward something potentially much larger: a political culture in which yesterday’s adversaries can become today’s collaborators without surrendering their right to independent thought.
Guyana is changing. Its economy is changing. Its infrastructure is changing. Its international importance is changing. Our politics must mature alongside that transformation.
The objective should not simply be to enlarge one political party. It should be to build a national movement around development, inclusion, opportunity, and unity.
If the PPP/C continues demonstrating that there is room within that movement for Guyanese who once opposed it while delivering measurable improvements in people’s lives, then we should not be surprised when more people decide that they too want to participate.
And when they do, they should not be condemned for where they came from. They should be judged by what they are prepared to contribute to where Guyana is going.
Yours respectfully,
Jermaine Figueira
Former Member of Parliament