The government and ruling party appear constitutionally incapable of addressing allegations against them in a rational fashion, despite the fact that these allegations by virtue of their provenance cannot be dismissed out of hand. Since the revelations in a United States courtroom about possible government links to Roger Khan, they have been tilting at windmills, attacking everyone and everything but making no attempt at a coherent defence. It is an approach which leaves them open to the accusation either that there is some merit in the disclosures, or that they lack the competence to respond in a reasoned and clear way – surely, if true, a damaging comment on their administrative capacity.
They have adopted the same line too whenever credible allegations of torture have been made against members of the GDF, most recently in the case of the suspects apprehended in connection with the Ministry of Health fire. Rather than answer the questions raised by the physical condition of those alleging torture, the practice has been either to brush the issue aside, as Minister Rohee attempted to do with his infamous ‘barrels’ comment, or downgrade torture to ‘roughing up,’ which was Minister Persaud’s contribution, or simply blame the media for covering the matter in the first place.
The latter seems to be President Jagdeo’s preferred approach, and it was given prominence in the August 8-9 Weekend Mirror by Mr Fazlur Rahman, who wrote, “The President also focused on the critical nature of newspaper reports and lamented the fact that they chose to highlight allegations of mistreatment of some of the suspects brought in for questioning and the human rights issues rather than the efforts to apprehend the criminals responsible for the destruction of a complex which serves all of our people.” In other words, it does not matter what methods are used in securing confessions from suspects, provided they do confess.
Contrary to what Mr Rahman appears to believe, there is no either-or situation in terms of reporting here, quite apart from the fact that any newspaper would be derelict in its duty if it ducked credible allegations of torture. Stabroek News reported both the apprehension of suspects, and the accusations of torture, and if the President thinks that the latter isn’t important enough to deserve mention in the press, then his government is not at all the democracy it likes to pretend it is.
In fact, reports of torture in and of themselves diminish any report on the arrest of suspects, since by implication the state has held people using means which are unconstitutional and against the rule of law, which are rejected by all civilized states and which at a practical level will seriously prejudice the prosecution’s ability to secure a conviction if the defendant is guilty. Mr Jagdeo should be grateful that the media draw torture allegations to his attention, even if only for the last-named reason. Confession statements obtained under duress are routinely thrown out by the courts, and if that happens, a potentially guilty party could walk free. From his point of view, therefore, why highlight “efforts to apprehend the criminals responsible” if in the end no one can be convicted because members of the Joint Services acted illegally?
True to form, government spokesmen homed in on the media again over the allegations emerging from the Robert Simels case in the US, accusing them of biased reporting. The most recent formulation of this came again in this weekend’s Mirror, via a front-page comment from some unnamed “residents in the US,” who cited this newspaper along with two other media houses as the guilty parties. Leaving aside the substance of their complaints, even if one were to accept purely for the sake of argument that they had some foundation, how on earth would that become a defence against the claims about governmental connections to Roger Khan? Those allegations are very specific and stand on their own; they are based on testimony given under oath in a US federal court, and would require a response which goes further than a flat denial from a government in any democratic jurisdiction. Any complaints about the media omitting to report unrelated allegations, even if they had substance, are an entirely separate matter.
Tilting at windmills was yet again the response to six political parties who have joined forces to pressure government into greater accountability, compile a dossier on rights abuses and sensitize international organizations on the administration’s links to Roger Khan. GINA reported Dr Luncheon as saying that the tools the PNCR had used recently had not succeeded, despite their “scandalous behaviour and that of print and television media operatives.” The main opposition had to resort to “Plan B,” it was said, after failing to secure support for recent protests. The general tenor of the NCN programme on Friday from which GINA extracted these remarks, was that it was Mr Corbin’s weakness that was behind the move, and that he was attempting to shore his position up, more especially in the context of his party’s upcoming biennial congress.
It is perfectly true, of course, that Mr Corbin has little credibility, that his own constituency has not been heeding his call to march, and that he probably hopes he will gain some political traction by joining the other parties in a unified approach. But even if that were so, what does it have to do with the substantive allegations concerning the government’s links to Mr Khan? Whatever the motivation of individual political leaders in drawing attention to the proceedings in New York, the serious allegations remain unanswered, and as long as they do, the government will be conveying the impression that they are hiding something.
As noted above, the refusal to respond meaningfully in this instance is part of a traditional pattern. Unfortunately, however, it will be difficult to apply pressure locally, simply because of the great divide. The government has already had recourse to all the old shibboleths about the PNC, and has utilized the customary code words (eg ‘terrorist’ tactics, destabilization) to rally its supporters. But whatever the PNC is or is not, and whatever its own unsavoury connections have been, that still does not mean that a sitting government is not answerable for its own actions. The sins of the PNC will not absolve the PPP administration of its own. The tragedy is that any appeal to principle in this country inevitably becomes submerged in the quagmire of partisan politics, and the ruling party, above all others, has a vested interest in ensuring that things remain that way.
In this particular instance, of course, there is the added problem that the PPP’s own constituency refuses to perceive Roger Khan as a criminal; rather they see him as a saviour who came to their rescue in 2002-03. The assumption that the Phantom solution was the only option at the time, is not something that most of them have ever questioned, any more than they have criticized the government for its handling of the crisis at the time.
It has to be added that it is part of the pathology of this society that wrongs are perpetrated only against one’s own ethnic group, and that whatever happens to the other major group does not resonate in the same way. The government, therefore, feels fairly confident that the six parties will not make much headway within Guyana provided the PPP can keep its own base solid. That base now includes a substantial number of Amerindians, whose support has been assiduously cultivated with ATVs and boats, etc, and who are too far away from the coastal centre to be fully engaged with politics in its larger aspect.
Given all of that, one must anticipate that the government and ruling party will continue to regale the populace with irrelevancies in the hope that the whole issue will eventually fade away. This time, however, that may not happen.
