Maybe it is something to do with the time of year, but this is the season for political folly it seems. If it is not the Leader of the Opposition dodging handshakes, then it is the President lecturing a foreign national about declining to meet him on that national’s home turf. One might have thought he would have had more taxing problems weighing on his mind.
When President Irfaan Ali first came to office he told the nation he would be open to listening to constructive criticism – whatever that meant. It seems that he has not heard any yet as he would define it, since he is reacting in a hostile fashion to all criticism from all sources. In addition, he has developed the habit of retreating into Freedom House’s well-worn tactic of attacking the critic rather than any comment they may have to make.
And there is plenty of criticism around which potentially could attract his attention, and while some of it is merited, or at least encapsulates points worthy of consideration, some of it is misdirected, ill-conceived, inaccurate or even malicious. The advent of social media has put huge strains on the norms of civilised debate and has debased the quality of discussion in terms of its content. While it is possible to impose some restraints on social media, a matter engaging the consideration of western governments currently, none of them, including Guyana, is in a position to go the route of China and crush it in a vise-like grip.
The low level of debate on social media where anonymity especially has caused people to abandon all inhibitions, has also infected the older more formal settings. Still, one would hope that those who govern us would rise above responding to the trivial and concentrate instead on justifying serious policy issues. Such justification as there is tends to come from Vice President Bharrat Jagdeo rather than the President, although even then the former avoids addressing the questions which very informed activists have posed, and just steams ahead with whatever he and the government have decided regardless.
But it was not the critics who concern themselves with various dimensions of the oil situation or the Demerara Harbour Bridge or the economy and cost of living issues which galvanised President Ali last week, it was the critics of his recent visit to the United States. He expressed himself shocked at the “naysayers” who had criticised the MOU with the US EXIM Bank, and especially those who had castigated him in a personal fashion.
“I didn’t intend to speak about it because I’m beginning to get tired of the naysayers,” he said, “but what is more worrying is that they are becoming very, very personalized in their attack. It can damage our reputation as a country. In the middle of [a] very high-level important conversation with our bilateral partners, you have all these reckless statements. Reckless statements when you’re advancing specific cause and results for our country. What are they trying to achieve? I promised myself I will not address [critics] but had to, because it must not continue without being addressed,” he said.
Exactly who these “naysayers” were was never divulged, but one can only assume that they made their views known on social media. We reported him as going on to say that negative views were a disservice to the nation and could inspire hostility from potential partners. In the United States? Surely not, since they already are fully aware of the situation in this country and the President was advised in diplomatic terms by both Secretary of State Antony Blinken and Vice President Kamala Harris about the need for inclusiveness and transparency. That was a veiled if implied criticism emanating from the highest level. He did not describe those two officials as “naysayers”.
It might be added that “reckless statements” on social media are not going to have much impact on the approach of any foreign nation, which will employ more conventional means to find out what the situation here is, especially if it has a mission locally. Yet puzzlingly for someone who has had international dealings for the past two years President Ali seems to believe that negative views could inspire hostility from potential partners and were a disservice to the nation. Leaving aside the nonsense about inspiring hostility, this comes close to suggesting that critics are anti-national, an unacceptable position in a democracy if that is indeed what he thinks.
Apparently the President is of the view that it was essential to build the image of a nation with trusted leaders, because the country did not want one-off or occasional meetings, but permanent and friendly contact. “Unless the world trusts us, only then it will want to do business with us. The world may do transactions with us but that is not trust …” This too is a highly idiosyncratic view, since foreign states maintain missions in all kinds of unstable countries where the leadership is not trusted, but where they see it as in their interest to seek an economic or some other kind of relationship. It might be thought that it would have occurred to our head of state by now that the only reason Guyana suddenly finds itself in the limelight is because of oil, not because its leaders are trusted or are not beset by “naysayers”. For this reason our country would be of international interest no matter who was in government. It might be noted, for example, that the United States is casting around for avenues to allow some kind of rapprochement even with Venezuela on account of its oil reserves.
But the President descended further into perplexing realms when he explained to the nation how hard he worked when he sallied forth on foreign visits. One would hope so, but then to the best of the public’s knowledge no one ever accused him of being lazy. He described his workload as: “Hard work, very little sleep. Very, very little sleep. Meetings after meetings that those behind the headlines will never understand, because I’m telling you they will never put an ounce of energy behind what we did in the last week. Never! It is not easy.”
Perhaps this was a reference to the formal media, and if so, just for the record, some of those behind the headlines put in these kinds of hours every day, and not just for the equivalent period of a foreign visit. In any case, there are many Guyanese workers who rise at five in the morning and work long hours to earn a very modest living, so President Ali’s comments about his industriousness when he goes abroad are perhaps a bit off-centre.
But he finally descended into folly when he decided to reproach Democratic Congressman Hakeem Jeffries for refusing to meet him, as he sees it, when he was in Washington. It seems Guyana’s ambassador invited him to a meeting with the President and he did not receive a reply – although this has been disputed by one letter-writer. Whatever the case, President Ali had this to say: “He [Mr Jeffries] has not responded to the ambassador’s invitation. Ask yourself, why? If you have all these concerns, why you haven’t attended a meeting that you were invited to? … Stop playing politics with the future of a country. This President will not allow it. I will speak about it. And in stronger terms as l speak about it.”
Well no one apparently advised him that he is in no position to prevent a US Congressman from ‘playing politics’ as he describes it with Guyana. He is annoyed because Mr Jeffries seems to be associated with a PNC diaspora group, and has in the past accused the PPP/C government of racism and marginalisation of African Guyanese, albeit without adducing any evidence. But whatever the case, it is foolishness for the head of state at his level to castigate a foreign politician because he sees him as aligned to a hostile opposition. The PPP too has its own diaspora lobby which was noticeably active under the coalition.
The President should leave the letter-writers to hold forth on whether or not there was a reply to the invitation, other than having Minister Hugh Todd say one was never received − which he has done. But squabbling at the highest level over an invitation snub is quite demeaning.
The President has to remember that he is in government with a slender one-seat majority, and that by definition nearly half the electorate did not vote to have him there. He can therefore expect criticism, and some of it will be valid or at least serious requiring a measured response. As mentioned, he has not even escaped it at the highest level of the American government, although what is required on the transparency and particularly the inclusion front will not be easy given the traditions of the party to which he belongs, and the poorly functioning opposition.
But criticism of major policy issues to which he should respond and doesn’t, is quite distinct from social media nonsense about the head of state going on a junket where foreign trips are concerned or whatever other inanity caused him to digress into the need for him to be trusted, etc. Where much of social media is concerned he clearly needs to become more pachydermatous so he doesn’t veer off into injudiciousness or even zaniness.
