Karl Popper’s much quoted aphorism that institutions are like fortresses: they have to be strongly built and well manned, is as applicable in Guyana as it is elsewhere. In fact, more applicable perhaps than in most places elsewhere. In the first instance, the ruling parties when in office, have gone to some trouble to ensure that institutions do not impede their ambit of action, preventing them from following a course which suits their partisan purpose in defiance of the rules.
In the second, we have been bequeathed leadership models who have been notable in many instances for being unable to distinguish between what they perceive to be in the interest of their group and what is in the interest of the nation. An aberrant extension of this is the inability to differentiate between what is in their own personal interest, and what is in the national interest. Everything else aside, this is a high road to corruption.
Owing to the famous divide in this society, which is not going to find a resolution any time soon, the electorate here has not held its politicians to any kind of high standard, or even any kind of minimally acceptable standard. As has been written on ad nauseam by many perceptive writers, the constituencies in this country feel greater security if they are represented by members of their own group, than if the government is associated with the party of the other group.
But there are other factors too. Electors are also induced to believe that ministers from their own party are more competent than those from the opposition. Of course, it is true that in every other democracy, competing parties present themselves as having better policies and more able personnel than their opponents; it is just that in our case, judgement is contaminated by the ethnic nature of our politics. As such, no objective moral standards are applied, and as has been observed before too, corruption on one’s own side is relatively easily overlooked, whereas that on the other side is not.
It has to be said that leaders in Guyana have varied in terms of their overall quality as well as in terms of their skills, although there would be no agreement − for the reasons cited above − among the members of the electorate as to which of them come to the top of the list, even in a single area of endeavour. Generalisations of a rather unhelpful nature are rather the order of the day.
Just how little the current leadership of both major parties thinks it necessary to put before voters the most capable presidential candidate when national elections roll around, is exemplified by their choices for the next poll – although when that takes place is as yet a moot point.
Leaving that aside for the present, it has been reported that President David Granger will stand as the APNU (PNC?) candidate in the next election. His flaws in terms of presidential decision-making are well known, and four years is more than long enough to allow an assessment of what a second term might look like. Given his record, more particularly as it relates to his handling of the post no-confidence vote and other matters, and given a choice of senior appointees which has hardly inspired the nation, one would have thought that the main segment of the governing party might have cast its net a little wider. The President is too, not a man of sound health, and while the populace has been assured of his complete recovery, it has to be concerned about his stamina, particularly in times of uncertainty and tension.
As for the PPP, which appears convinced of electoral victory once the poll is held, one has to wonder how it is they alighted on former minister of housing Irfaan Ali as their preferred presidential candidate. In the first place, as we reported earlier this year, Mr Ali has criminal charges before the courts regarding his alleged involvement in the allocation and sale of land in the ‘Pradoville 2’ Housing Scheme, and in the second, questions have been raised about his academic credentials.
One might have thought that this would have given Leader of the Opposition Bharrat Jagdeo pause for thought, since he was the one associated in the public eye with the choice in the first instance. Mr Ali’s impediments notwithstanding, the former housing minister defeated former attorney general Anil Nandlall 24 to 11 in a secret ballot in the central committee, while the other three candidates vying for the position, namely, Gail Teixeira, Vindhya Persaud and Frank Anthony, withdrew from the selection process.
Mr Ali, of course, is a man after Mr Jagdeo’s own heart, and it is clear that the Opposition Leader has read his constituency to want someone who will have personal contact with them, will listen to their concerns and will be approachable, just as the patriarch of the party was. Presumably with that in mind, we reported Mr Jagdeo as saying last week that the PPP presidential candidate had been conducting outreaches in various parts of the country. “He is working, listening to people, and ensuring that their ideas become part of his policies for the future,” we quoted him as saying. Exactly what he meant by ensuring people’s ideas became part of his policies for the future was not explained, neither did he give clarification on which subject areas were involved. One does not imagine it covered technical economic issues, for example.
If he was interested in Mr Ali making face-to-face contact with the party’s supporters and listening to their local and personal concerns, he seemed to have less interest in the new candidate advising them about the state of the country: “I’m not going to get into that,” we quoted him as saying; “Our candidate is working on the ground, where it matters.”
In other words, Guyana is still a very small country, and the primary focus of people’s political interest does not centre on the grand sweep of international events, except perhaps in certain cases for their entertainment value. They will be interested in Guyana’s electoral matters and periods which are a source of anxiety, but that again comes within the parameters of what affects them personally. Mr Jagdeo, it would seem, is not of the view that most of those who vote in national elections will ask penetrating questions about a candidate’s honesty, integrity, qualifications (in the widest sense of that term) or experience, let alone about their commitment to a rational society governed by the rule of law. All of which does not mean to say that those seeking presidential office should not meet the people or listen to their grievances; it is just to remark that the electors for their part should not exclude consideration of certain basic ethical standards when making their assessments.
The restoration of decency and integrity starts at the top.
