Dear Editor,
It is not very often that we get to read letters from PNC Leader, Mr. Robert Corbin, and when we do, we usually get a little more insight into his thinking. But his latest letter, carried in the dailies on Tuesday, October 10, perhaps intended for our edification, actually demands clarification.
In his letter, he came across as combative, sometimes defensive, as he railed against “rumours” that he was engaged in talks with President Bharrat Jagdeo on a possible constitutional amendment to allow the President a third term in office, and in exchange for the PNC’s parliamentary support to this end, he would get the prime ministerial slot.
He wrote: “I have at no time and under any circumstances discussed with Mr. Bharrat Jagdeo the issue of a third term for the President of Guyana. The possibility of my supporting or the PNCR discussing any bid for a third term for Jagdeo could therefore not arise. The issue of shared Governance has always been on the agenda for my discussions with President Jagdeo and was first raised by me since May 2003. This matter remains a high priority issue on my agenda for continued discussions with President Jagdeo and the PPP.”
Now, even if Mr. Corbin wants us to believe he is not in talks with the President on amending the constitution to facilitate the President for a third term, his admission that the shared governance issue has always been on the agenda for discussions with the President raises the question as to whether, during their meetings in the past, he has actually been engaging the President on shared governance talks?
If so, then a constitutional amendment will be needed for shared governance to take effect, just as a constitutional amendment will be needed if the President is to get a third term. And the role of the PNC in either scenario cannot be denied or diminished.
Second, how can Mr. Corbin engage in shared governance talks with President Jagdeo while the AFC, a parliamentary opposition party, is not represented at the talks? Does he not view this as grossly irresponsible and terribly selfish? Or does he see the shared governance concept as a deal to be worked out only between himself and the President (PPP/PNC)?
I firmly believe that this daring exclusion of the AFC from talks between Mr. Corbin and the President has greatly fuelled the growing belief among observers that something is brewing between the two men. Why the exclusion Mr. Corbin? Why the exclusion Mr. President?
Third, is the PPP aware of or participating in any shared governance talks between Mr. Corbin and the President? If so, what areas have been covered and what is the status of the talks? Fourth, why would the President engage in shared governance talks with Mr. Corbin if the President is not expected to be in office beyond 2011? Is the President paving the way for his successor or for himself?
Mr. Editor, we heard from the PPP General Secretary who said the party has no plans for a third term for the President. We also heard the President deny there are talks or plans for a constitutional amendment for a third term (even though he doesn’t know yet what he will do after 2011). But if the interpretation of Mr. Corbin’s seemingly casual admission of his power sharing talks with the President is taken at face value, then it can undercut his denial of any possible plan for a constitutional amendment to facilitate a third term for the President, and demands he clarifies whether he discussed shared governance with the President in the past year.
Yours faithfully,
Emile Mervin
