For over two weeks, the nation has been agog with the revelations made by Ms Varshnie Singh, some of which amounted to serious allegations against President Bharrat Jagdeo, who has elected not to respond to them beyond the brief statement he made after she first went public.
Opinion has been divided over whether or not the nation should have been privy to the details, some of which are damning. For instance, Ms Singh charged that during their time together she was “not allowed to work and did not receive proper maintenance or care, financial or otherwise” and that she “was subjected to ‘hi-tech’ domestic violence.”
A week later, when she met with selected members of the media, Ms Singh divulged that her nine-year “marriage” to President Jagdeo had never been registered. Their union was solemnized according to Hindu rites in 1998. However, the civil aspect of it, to which the state gives recognition as legally binding, never took place. Ms Singh told reporters that there were at least three attempts to register it. She said on the first two occasions the President said he had lost the forms. By the time third a attempt was made, he had assumed the presidency and had informed her that he could not be subjected to court proceedings and with that in mind she took the decision not to sign any legal documents. Ms Singh said initially she did not think there was a wilful attempt to stall the process but admitted harbouring doubts in retrospect.
The President, however, has refused to respond to questions on the legitimacy of the marriage, but his silence speaks volumes. The fact is that the Head of State of a country is a public figure and lives his/her life mostly in the public eye. Much like people are obsessed with the lives of celebrities, if he/she as much as catches a cold, they want to know about it. And they would prefer the truth, though this is not always what they get.
What appears to be the truth here is that what the President had with Ms Singh was an informal liaison. Ms Singh was never legally entitled to use the name Jagdeo and therefore technically was also never the First Lady of Guyana. This was perhaps the reason for her much-speculated-about absences from the President’s entourage on state visits overseas. International protocols make no provision for ‘first partner.’
Both President Jagdeo and Ms Singh were always aware that their Hindu wedding was just a religious ceremony; others close to them might also have been privy to this information. They both chose to mislead the nation about their true marital status. They missed an opportunity to clear this up when they announced their “separation” in 2007, instead fuelling speculation among the masses about a divorce.
Though to her credit, when it was put to her that she in effect participated in a sham, Ms Singh replied “guilty as charged.” She then added that she did not know what else to do.
President Jagdeo is not the first and probably will not be the last Head of State to lie to his people about his personal relationship. A well-known case in point is that of former US president Bill Clinton, who had famously told the American people that he had not had an affair with Monica Lewinsky – though not in those exact words. This lie was subsequently blown wide open, embarrassingly so for him and his family.
Nor will Mr Jagdeo’s be the first liaison to end messily, publicly and rife with allegations of domestic violence. Premier of the Turks and Caicos Islands Michael Misick’s marriage to American actress and fashion designer Lisa Raye McCoy Misick ended last year in disarray. She accused him of infidelity and domestic violence and he locked her and her family out of the presidential mansion.
When ordinary people lose their way in relationships, and this happens all the time, it only becomes a matter of public record when a divorce petition is filed. Not so with public figures. And what remains in people’s minds long after these episodes, is the way the persons concerned conduct themselves and their affairs.
President Jagdeo would be seen in a better light were he to apologise to the nation for his shortcomings and conclude as decent a settlement with Ms Singh. With regard to the allegations of psychological abuse, here again what is needed is contriteness. While Mr Jagdeo may not want to become involved in a tit-for-tat exchange, and does not necessarily have to, he could have repaired his image by simply apologising to Ms Singh and the nation as well. Humility has never hurt a Head of State, in fact it actually helps. However, President Jagdeo’s initial implacability has now made an apology difficult if not impossible to accept. Different handling of the entire situation would have seen different results. One wonders whether it is that the President’s advisors were asleep at the wheel or whether they have in fact become rubber stamps — agreeing with and appeasing the President rather than advising him. What may have had the makings of a nine-day wonder will now remain like a thorn in Mr Jagdeo’s side, particularly if Ms Singh makes good on her vow to hire local legal representation.
