Dear Editor,
I write in response to Cary Fraser’s letter in the Stabroek News of January 15 under the caption ‘The PPP has never been able to develop a philosophy for governing a fragmented society.’ Mr Fraser‘s letter is his reply to my rebuttal of his ‘In The Diaspora’ column article of January 3. I wish to state at the very beginning that I applaud him for keeping the discourse civil, befitting someone from academia.
I believe Mr Fraser has mistaken my earlier letter as one “defending Dr. Cheddi Jagan, Mr Bharat Jagdeo, and the PPP’s record as a governing party over the course of its history.” In my letter, I pointed to two issues in his piece, each of which, I believe, could be looked at from a different perspective. If anything, I see my letter as a call for acknowledging, as the Guyanese saying goes, that ‘every story gat two sides,’ both of which must be assessed before reaching a conclusion. I urge him to take another look at what I wrote.
Over the last decade, many have lamented the fact that a Truth and Reconciliation Commission was never set up in Guyana after the 1992 return to free and fair elections. It is believed that such a commission would have allowed each of the major race groups to air their grievances so that a comprehensive programme of national reconciliation and healing could have been adopted. In the absence of such a process, each race group has held on to its version of history and considers themselves the aggrieved party without giving a thought to the grievances of the other side.
I decided to give another side to two points raised in Mr Fraser’s initial piece, fully expecting the reaction from bloggers my comments elicited. My position is not the one that is generally accepted in academic and intellectual circles or the one likely to be discussed in polite, racially mixed social circles where smiles and political correctness are preferred. Yet, it represents the views of the silent majority of PPP supporters who do not write letters to the press or blog on the internet, but express their views in the privacy of the polling booth. Guyanese in the homeland will only be able to get beyond the past and chart a new path if these matters are dealt with in a frank, open and honest manner so that each group can understand each other’s pain and take steps to prevent the hurt
I did not enter into this discussion to score debating points, so instead of commenting on the points raised in Mr Fraser’s letter of January 16, I believe it would be more useful to look at how the confrontation to the Jagdeo presidency played out.
Guyana Review of August 11, 2009, in an article captioned “Impressions of the Jagdeo presidency ten years on” informs us “At 35, Jagdeo was the hemisphere’s youngest head of state…. In his favour was the fact that he was a young leader who offered the possibility of change – a break from the destructive politics of the past. On the other hand, here was a young leader (the ‘Lil’ boy,’ as he was dubbed in the winning calypso the next year) who was untried, untested, and all but completely unprepared for the challenges of leading a nation. And while it might seem naïve now, there was also the doubt that he battled from the very start: Could he really be his own man?” The article continues “In his inaugural address, he committed himself to being ‘an emissary of renewed hope’ and a healing process in society. He was quoted as saying ‘I promise to put my best effort and that of my party into the realisation of a Guyana of which we all feel a part, an equal part and Guyana which we can all feel justly proud… I offer you a chance to break with vicious circle of insecurity… we need to trust each other in our ethnically diverse community. We need to break away from this bondage of victim and victor perceptions.’” Not without significance the article notes, “When he took office, he extended a hand to an opposition leader who did not recognise his legitimacy. Later, aftersecuring his own mandate with an electoral victory, Jagdeo used his March 31, 2001 inauguration to plug unity and reconciliation.” Now, let us look at what happened. The results of elections were followed by street protests and vigils around Georgetown with violence against Indian-Guyanese and attacks on business places. The PNC disassociated itself from and rightly condemned these acts. However, the vulnerability of Mr Jagdeo at that time is noted in a Stabroek News report of April 24, 2001, “President Bharat Jagdeo and PNC REFORM leader, Desmond Hoyte, are to meet at 4.30 pm today… President Jagdeo has expressed the desire that the talks be held in an atmosphere free from fear, intimidation and pressure. On the other hand, Hoyte has said that his party had to negotiate from a position of strength.”
On April 23, 2001 Stabroek News editorial reads, “The marches, like the one on Saturday in the city centre, can only pollute the enabling atmosphere needed for talks to produce real results. The only logical objective of the marches at this point would be to attempt to exert pressure on the PPP/C government to make concessions. This kind of bullying tactic does not belong in the arena of serious talks and can backfire… Further the marches become the focus for violence, criminal acts and verbal aggression. The recent ones have been characterised by cries of ‘more fire’ – dangerous in this season of arson…” As we know, shortly after talks started, Mr Hoyte suspended dialogue. Regarding the suspension, Professor John Gafar (Guyana: From State Control To Free Markets) writes, “The sad truth is that the PNC is not interested in any dialogue that would help the PPP to reduce tensions, promote law and order and govern more effectively since this is not the goal of the PNC. There is some loose talk among the PNC/Reform of ‘removing’ the lawful PPP/C government, apparently by unlawful methods.”
The situation in the country worsened in 2002 starting with the Mash Day jailbreak, followed by the storming of the President’s office in July and the rampage of the of the ‘Buxton gang.’ These and their effects have been well documented and now etched in peoples’ memory so there is no need to go into details. One piece is however is worth recalling. On May 4, 2002, Stabroek News reports “The Working People Alliance (WPA) has condemned ‘out-of-hand’ those who have issued the handbill in current circulation threatening police units, government officials and their families… Noting that the recent handbills target large groupings of people without guilt or innocence, the WPA said “this is the kind of threat which can earn whole communities the reputation of blood-thirstiness.” Around this time, many were looking at Guyana as a failed state. And then, we see a resolute President emerging, with Stabroek News reporting on October 21, 2002, “President Bharat Jagdeo yesterday assured residents of East Berbice that he would not ‘succumb to blackmail’ and that he has ‘totally rejected Opposition Leader Desmond
Hoyte’s $250M proposal for Buxton … Even if the money was there, I would not succumb to blackmail’ the President told residents of Corriverton.”
Around June 2003, Freddie Kissoon wrote a series of very informative articles which were published in the Guyana Chronicle. This extract was prescient: “There is no evidence available at the moment that the top leaders of ACDA or the PNC knew about the jailbreak plan, but once it happened and the Douglas tape was made, both ACDA and the PNC and the trio that makes up the WPA leadership … saw political usefulness in the Buxton factor… My own feeling is that the PNC’s tactical condoning of Ocean Eleven will haunt them at election time in 2006 even if Raphael Trotman is made the presidential candidate. As for the WPA, it is virtually dead.” The PPP won the 2006 election and consolidated Mr Jagdeo’s hold on power both within his party and the country. No one could now challenge his authority. The “lil boy” was finally his ‘own man.’ He had survived the early humiliation and baptism by fire and now there will be no compromise. The constitution gave him extraordinary powers, he would not agree to any dilution, and he will use his authority to the fullest.
The opposition had overplayed their hands prior to the elections and now the country was in no mood for a challenge to Mr. Jagdeo’s rule. By June 2007, he was emboldened enough to dismiss Mrs Janet Jagan’s suggestion that the government reverse its decision to cease placing advertisements in the Stabroek News, saying, “Her opinion is not government’s policy, especially when the matter relates to the use of taxpayers’ funds.” As we reflect on the Jagdeo presidency, we should remember the old Guyanese refrain, ‘Lil puppy does grow up to become big dag.’
This letter should not be misconstrued and taken as a defence of President Jagdeo’s record. I have simply attempted to show the connection between confrontation, a short-term strategy based on expediency, and long-term consequences. This is a year of national elections in Guyana. The government has a mixed record of achievements, showing increasing signs of ineptitude, cronyism and a tolerance for corruption. And in recent years the PNC under Mr. Corbin has shown tremendous restraint in not taking to the streets. What remains to be seen is how the generation of voters that was exposed to the traumas of 2001-02 and beyond will vote. Ultimately, the power to hold the government accountable rests with the electorate through the exercise of their vote.
I hope after the elections politicians will recognize that Guyana’s history, its population geography, and its social and economic structure all point to the need for a more inclusive form of governance. This will only come about through give-and-take negotiations and not through coercion.
Yours faithfully,
Harry Hergash
