Recently, the notion of a closer working relationship between the political parties and civil society for national development has been revisited by some commentators. Foremost amongst them is President Jagdeo who, in answer to a question posed at his end of year press conference, stated, “The real issues will not await meetings between the political parties.” Later in the same press conference, he went on to say that in so far as he was concerned, he never made a promise to see the National Stakeholder’s Forum become institutionalized. (December 24, 2009).
Within days of making the above unambiguous and categorical statements the President did an apparent volte-face when speaking at the ceremonial re-commissioning of the Kitty Pump, by stating that “national issues are bigger than partisan political interests, and that “we need to work closer at the national level… If we get that framework where all the parties can work in a collaborative fashion, we can make more progress. We can move our country faster forward. I want to do this.” (January 10, 2010). Shortly, thereafter, the constituent members of the National Stakeholder’s Forum were invited back to the Office of the President to find consensus on relief for Haiti. For all intents and purposes we are presumably entering into the 7th détente of the Jagdeo administration. This time around, the players are less inclined to be reeled in by the rhetoric. Witness the stand taken by the Red Cross Association in its approach to aid relief to Haiti, as an example that mere words may not be enough to melt the suspicions and distrust.
The statements and actions made within two weeks of each other are in stark contradistinction, and I dare say, a cause for much angst within many circles. We must ask the question whether the President is being genuine when he spoke in December about not needing to co-operate for development, or whether he was being genuine when he spoke in January about us being able to develop faster if we collaborate, as is his desire. One wonders whether he is being held hostage by some external, or Freedom House force that causes him to make these vastly different and inexplicable statements so near to each other.
Admittedly, my dealings with President Jagdeo at meetings and forums have always been pleasant and he does come across as sincere and well-meaning. In fact, most discussions held with him are cordial and filled with competitive banter. It is difficult therefore to make sense of his other utterances which stand out distinctly. We were taken in by his carefully chosen words in his inaugural address to the 9th Parliament, and excited by the follow-up meeting of political leaders held at the Office of the President some weeks after to agree an agenda for working together. That was the first and last such meeting. Thereafter, the gloves came off, and things were different.
There seems to be a Jekyll and Hyde syndrome playing out because the President Jagdeo in a closed door meeting is a different President Jagdeo to the one appearing before the cameras, and worse yet, when he crosses the Berbice River. For some inexplicable reason, his demeanour changes and statements that I have had to refer to in the past as “unstatesmanlike” emanate from him in at Babu John and elsewhere which literally slam the door on political cooperation.
We have had the infamous, “Opposition parties are part and parcel of the criminals and will arm criminals if they become government”; “AFC involved in Pepper sauce in cocaine” and quite recently, (January 12, 2010) the statements that the AFC is causing racial strife by pandering to base emotions in an effort to resurrect ethnic loyalties and insecurities. Trotman, he says, is telling Lindeners that this is an Indian government, and the “water boy” Ramjattan, he says, does the reverse in Berbice and Essequibo by saying that it is an African government, and then he goes further to accuse MP Patterson who he alleges, goes to Paramakatoi and tells the Amerindians that they are being neglected by Africans and Indians.” Apart from these being downright untruths and silly, these statements when made by a head of state of a racially polarized state, can be quite dangerous. We have called the President to account for his statements and even to a public debate, which he shied away from for reasons best known to him. Therefore, this latest vulgar swipe at the AFC’s leadership has to be juxtaposed against his breezy Sunday afternoon seawall statements in which he speaks glibly about collaboration and working together for Guyana. What is it about East Berbice that can cause the President to change character, or so quickly to shed his statesmanlike demeanour and go into unimaginable depths to lambaste the AFC?
And so when we are asked about “enhanced cooperation” and our willingness to participate, we have to be cautious. The AFC has embraced healing and reconciliation as a sine qua non for Guyana’s development; understandably, however, we must be skeptical and ask whether there is something going on that we are unaware of. Is this a ‘gift horse,’ or is there a 3rd term scenario unfolding within a ‘personal power-sharing’ arrangement being fabricated? Like most Guyanese, the AFC is the last to be officially informed about many things.
The AFC’s leadership has been consistent in its statements and actions in seeking healing and reconciliation of a long-lasting and comprehensive kind. However, we are unwilling to participate in a farce, a sham or a dangerous political game being played by a chosen few whilst most of the nation remain as mere spectators, and some are used as pawns to be dispensed with afterwards.
Whenever the national interest is the issue we will always want desperately to engage all stakeholders, including President Jagdeo, the PPP/C, PNCR, GAP, ROAR, Justice For All, and other political and civil society stakeholders, to be able to find solutions to our myriad problems. Our only condition for engagement is that we engage each other with a respect and sincerity that is under-girded by patriotism. Guyana cannot develop unless we re-engineer our governance architecture to ensure that the decision-making process is holistically, and not cosmetically, inclusive as mandated by Article 13 of our constitution, and by the direct involvement of non-resident Guyanese in the diaspora also having a voice in our decision-making and development processes. I would therefore leave President Jagdeo to define and explain what his interpretation of “cooperation within an enhanced frame-work” is. Afterwards, we will examine it and then decide if, how, and when we engage. In the meantime, I have to caution that inviting us to be part of the national relief effort for Haiti whilst peddling blatant falsehoods that we are causing racial strife and disharmony cannot help to foster genuine and mutual respect, trust, and understanding which are all so vitally necessary for any sustained and rewarding dialogue and long-lasting peace and stability.
Yours faithfully,
Raphael Trotman
