President Bharrat Jagdeo’s recent Babu John address, where he accused PNCR presidential candidate David Granger of having “blood on his hands,” was not racially inflammatory but may set a “dangerous” precedent, the Ethnic Relations Commission (ERC) has found.
The ERC today released its findings on the speech, which it investigated on its own accord based on a number of public comments and opinions it elicited, including accusations of it being “racially divisive and inflammatory.”
The ERC said it did not find that “the statements made and which may be based on a historical occurrence was a willful attempt to excite hostility against any section of the public or against any person on the basis of their race; nor is the Commission of the opinion that the statement can result in racial or ethnic violence among people in the context and meaning of the legislation.”
It, however, added that while it may be useful to give pause and to reflect on our common history and events in the past, it may not be in the interest of any political party to appeal, to controversial events of the past. “This is more especially so if as an ad captandum vulgus [to win over the crowd], it is intended implicitly or explicitly to attract, please or to pander to any form of ethnic insecurities, which in turn may be capable of being used to isolate or to bring further division to all people in this country. This may be a dangerous and unnecessary precedent and the Commission wishes to remind all leaders of communities and political parties to set the proper example and to act responsibly,” it said.
Acting under Article 212 D of the Constitution of Guyana, the ERC said it deliberated on the implications of the speech at a specially convened meeting on April 11.
Jagdeo’s address was made at the annual memorial held for late former Presidents Dr Cheddi Jagan and Janet Jagan, at Babu John, Port Mourant, Berbice on March 13. According to the ERC, the chief issue was Jagdeo’s reference to Granger. “The PNC has just chosen as their presidential candidate a man who was very active in that era, the era of oppression, the era of starving our people, and I say this because they have gone backwards, they have gone backwards to choose someone who is characterised by repression, who has blood on his hands, because the people in Berbice, just here, the people who were killed protecting ballot boxes, protecting democracy, were killed in full knowledge of people like Granger and others who controlled the political directions of the country at the time…” Jagdeo said. “So they’re counting on poor memories and they’re counting on the lack of knowledge on the part of young people to bring these white elephants, behemoths, the fossils of the past back in the political arena, and I hope that you will as I ask you, make sure that people are educated about that past,” he added.
In its findings, the ERC said it seemed as if the PPP/C has begun its political campaign by focusing its attention on Granger, and it noted that it was seen as a personalised attack.
The ERC said it did not comment on whether Babu John was an appropriate forum for the political statements, or whether the accusations levelled against Granger were historically accurate or defamatory in the context of his involvement in this regard, while noting that it was not its place to do so.
It noted that the pertinent issue was whether the reference to Granger as having “blood on his hands” and a broader reference to Guyana’s political past—the “era of oppression, the era of starvation”—is in contravention of the Representation of the People (Amendment) Act No 1 of 2001; and/or the Racial Hostility Act, Cap 23:01. The ERC added that the reference to “people who were killed protecting ballot boxes” may be ascribed to a factual historic occurrence when the Guyana Defence Force (GDF) shot and killed three PPP activists who were among a group attempting to block the army from removing ballot boxes during the 1973 national elections.
“Deconstructing the text of the President’s speech, the Commission has noted that the deliberate reference to the “fossils of the past”; the reference to “our” in an audience that was predominantly PPP/C supporters; the charge for people to be ‘educated about the past’; the “blood on his hands” statement, are statements that may be referencing Guyana’s history which has been marred with ethnic insecurities and accusations of racism,” it said. It added that it has been argued that these statements may be used to preserve the argument used to harness or create racial fears of the past in order to ensure that there is continued ethnic allegiance to the PPP/C.
