“Questioned on if he would seek to advocate the punishment of those who committed alleged wrongdoings during the PPP elected period, an animated Granger… said ‘Of course! …. People who have been alleged to have commit illegal or criminal acts will be punished.’” (“National unity gov’t would not include persons guilty of wrongdoing – Granger” SN: 18/11/2014).
Mr. Granger then later elaborated:
“There is no prospect of sitting around the table with criminals. If people have done wrong I would not intrude or interfere with the course of the law. But we can invite persons… parties, people with clean hands, to come into the administration….” (ibid).
This has been the general gist of Mr. David Granger’s somewhat puritanical position on matters such as these for some time. But last week a PPP press statement sought to take his comments out of their historical and immediate context and present the leader of the opposition as advocating punishment without due process: an action which they claim will make “the Demerara river run with blood if he is elected president.”
It would appear that, like its act of prorogation, the PPP has adopted this crude propaganda because its efforts to sufficiently energize its traditional base have not thus far been successful. Its grip on power is slipping and it is projecting Armageddon both to help mobilize its ethnic base and instill caution into those who will come to power.
On the other hand, as last Sunday’s (30/11/2014) editorial in the Stabroek News recognised, the demand for retribution and the call for national unity government by Mr. Granger present a political dilemma and one that is even more problematic for those who are demanding a national unity government before national elections. After all, if the leadership of the PPP is only guilty of half of the number of crimes they have been accused of, why should it agree to any national unity agreement that is likely to put it and its interest in jeopardy?
After quoting Mr. Granger out of context, the PPP sought to present itself as the historic nation builder, and there is some substance in its contention that after it won the 1992 elections, rather than seeking to punish persons for past crimes it sought national reconciliation and national healing.
“The PPP could have chosen the path of recrimination but we chose to harness the talents and abilities of all and give people the opportunity to feel part of the positive change that the PPP victory ushered in with the dawn of a new era”(Ibid).
Of course, this is only part of the story of why the PPP let the PNC off the hook in 1992: the other part is that party simply did not have the power to do otherwise. The security forces and the general administration upon which it would have had to depend to carry out its anti-PNC designs were then still very much in the control of the PNC. Furthermore, as the events leading to the Herdmanston and St. Lucia agreements demonstrate, the PNC was still very strong on the streets and the PPP government would have been most unwise to attempt any massive retribution.
Today, the national and international contexts have significantly changed in terms of permissible retribution against deviant political actors. A new government in Guyana would be in a much better position to prosecute political suspects. Furthermore, try as it has, the PPP has still not been able to dominate the state machinery the way the PNC did.
If by this latest piece of propaganda the PPP is trying to agitate its traditional supporters, it should note that Mr. Moses Nagamootoo went into its heartland and appears to have gone at least as far as Mr. Granger in how the AFC intends to deal with those who are alleged to have been corrupt.
He is reported to have said that when his party comes to power it will “change the constitution” to enable it to proceed against specific groups and individuals. “… the party will make unprecedented moves to have the “elitist clan” of the People’s Progressive Party face the music for its corrupt acts which he feels have left the nation with severe damage. …. He is interested in having the former President, Bharrat Jagdeo and current Head of State, Donald Ramotar, held accountable for their wrongdoing.” (“We will amend laws to deal with Jagdeo, Ramotar – AFC’s Nagamootoo” SN: 28/11/2014).
Messrs. Granger and Nagamootoo are politicians intent upon winning votes and the latter has particularly targeted traditional PPP supporters. Mr. Granger aside, when the presidential candidate of the AFC, which is overly cautious not to alienate its present Indian supporters, makes these kinds of statements, it is because he and his party believe that they resonate with many traditional PPP supporters.
Make no mistake, many opposition supporters want the PPP’s leadership to pay for crimes they believe them to have committed. Therefore, if Mr. Nagamootoo’s assessment is true it will significantly increase the possibility of retribution against the PPP elite!
Yet, in my view, if Guyana is to make quick and sustainable normal progress free from all the corrupt shenanigans that are exposed in the media on an almost daily basis, some properly constructed form of executive power-sharing, national unity government, or whatever, is required.
As power slips from the PPP, it has reached a stage where there appears to be no moral limit to its attempt to win back its lost supporters. This is understandable given the concerns surreptitiously expressed in its “river of blood” press statement.
Therefore, if we are to achieve a workable government of national unity we must be prepared to put in place mechanisms to overcome the difficulties inherent in hankering after retribution and wanting a government representing all the parties in the National Assembly.
The opposition cannot simply make broad statements apparently threatening even retrospective legislation. They need to present the nation with clear policies on this important issue which will also hopefully mitigate the PPP’s efforts to take advantage of every conceptual slip.
In this regard, not unlike the essence of what has taken place in other countries, Chapter 16 – “National Unity and Reconciliation” – of the constitution of the Republic of South Africa states: “In order to advance such reconciliation and reconstruction, amnesty shall be granted in respect of acts, omissions and offenses associated with political objectives and committed in the course of the conflicts of the past. To this end, Parliament under this Constitution shall adopt a law determining a firm cut-off date, which shall be a date after 8 Oct 1990 and before 6 Dec 1993, and providing for the mechanisms, criteria and procedures, including tribunals, if any, through which such amnesty shall be dealt with at any time after the law has been passed.”
