In case it had escaped anyone’s attention, it seems that the annual remembrance ceremony for Dr Cheddi Jagan last week marked the beginning of the election season. While there were the usual soaring claims of unity, the substance of much of what was said was divisive in character. The occasion at Babu Jaan, intended to celebrate the life of one of the founders of the PPP and its first President, has often been used to hit out at the opposition, sometimes in more vulgar language than was on display this time around, but it is invariably a harbinger of electioneering to come.
The feature address was delivered by PPP General Secretary Bharrat Jagdeo who launched into what has become a customary tirade warning Guyanese to be alert to the manipulations and lies of the PNC, which he said was determined to divide the nation. “If we’re not careful, they will succeed in dividing our people again, by picking them off one by one. By appealing to their emotions… They believe again, they can go back to the 2015 era and say to people, the PPP is corrupt once again,” he was quoted as saying, going on to remark that they had spent five years in office and had not found any trace of corruption. Clearly he does not take seriously the latest figures from Transparency International which indicate that the public perception of state corruption remains much the same as it was.
As for cautioning his supporters about how the opposition appeals to the emotions, the irony appeared lost on him that that was exactly what he was doing too. He said that APNU’s only political tool to mobilize people was “racism”: “They say that they are in favour of Afro-Guyanese but Afro-Guyanese are some of the worst treated people in the five years they were in office …” This was in contrast to the PPP, he said, which benefited all the people, irrespective of race, and he invited his audience to look at the crowd, at the party’s activities and at their programmes.
This is a version of an assertion which both parties like to make, namely, that they are
multiracial in terms of their composition. Both have some members from other races it is true, but neither is multiracial in any meaningful sense. Furthermore, whatever the composition of the audience at Babu Jaan – and it was still largely, but not exclusively Indian – that is not evidence of a multiracial party. The racial constituencies have not changed fundamentally as yet.
As for matters of the delivery of ‘benefits’, that is a more problematic area. There are certainly allegations of lack of fairness, but these have never been documented. In terms of the economy this government has far more funds at its disposal than any of its predecessors, but has invested these primarily in high profile infrastructure, not all of it wholly defensible, and has not utilised it in ways which would improve the life of the ordinary man or woman.
That is a different kind of criticism, however, since it probably affects all races and groups.
Turning to those who challenge the PPP/C the General Secretary was reported as saying that there was a need to raise the consciousness of citizens as those who would deceive them were at work promising the “moon and the stars.” However, he went on, “they better be cautious. They got to come right. It’s a free country politically, but they may have interpreted our being quiet as a sign of weakness. It’s not so. When the right time comes, we will deal with them.” Whatever that means. That apart, there is no critic in this country, political or otherwise, who has witnessed the ruling party staying quiet when they have a comment to make; the PPP/C is not amenable to contrary views.
Like the General Secretary, President Ali emphasized the vision of unity bequeathed to the party by Dr Jagan, but he too urged Guyanese to carefully examine the motives of those who say they have better leadership to offer than the PPP. One would have thought that the overwhelming majority of politicians harboured the same motives for seeking office, and that those of the opposition were no different from those of the President himself. However, it seems as if he might have had some of his critics outside the official opposition in mind as well, since we reported him as saying that many speak as the conscience of society and that they constitute the intellectual elements of society, so they can provide better leadership than the PPP/C. Echoing Mr Jagdeo, he too exhorted people to examine their motives.
It seems the PPP is incapable of believing that critics make comments in good faith.
In a strange observation he went on to say there were still “forces out there who believe that the People’s Progressive Party does not possess the finesse, we don’t have the sophistication to be in government or to lead this country.” Perhaps his party did not speak what he called the “right type of English” or wear the right type of suits, but it always did what was right for the nation, day in, day out: “Our fight is for the upliftment of the people of this country; our fight is for the safety, honour, dignity, democracy, freedom of the people of this country.”
It is difficult to know what to make of this, except that it might suggest a certain insecurity. Fighting for the upliftment of the nation is admirable, but given the complexity of modern society and the difficulties of our social situation sophisticated approaches are not to be dismissed. These, however, have nothing to do with sartorial matters, or even the ‘right type of English’, provided communication is absolutely clear in addition to being logical.
One area where the President did deviate from the General Secretary was over the matter of contracts, where in a back-handed way he conceded there had been delays in some cases. But it was put in the form that while the opposition will write for the whole day about uncompleted pump stations, they will not say that the contractors will be under penalty and will have to pay damages. Furthermore the delays were not because of government, but factors such as the supply chain crisis, Covid, major floods, a serious drought and other natural disasters.
This is a good deal less than the truth. Some members of the opposition have been doing the work they are supposed to do in more recent times, particularly Messrs David Patterson and Ganesh Mahipaul, by raising concerns over contracts such as that to the Tepui Group, and the one for the Bamia Primary School, to name the two most egregious cases. It is not just that the terms of these contracts have not been fulfilled, it is that questions arise about whether they should have been granted in the first place. As things stand, the cronyism allegation where contracts are concerned has not been dispelled, and with it therefore comes the whiff of corruption.
At the bottom of the problem of the PPP in terms of its political outlook, as has been said many times before, is the fact that it sees no role for the opposition in our democracy. This is despite the fact that the Constitution sets out its function. In more recent times as mentioned, certain opposition members, such as Jermaine Figueira and the earlier-mentioned two, have been operating more in a way that an opposition should. And the country needs that. Omniscience is not granted to any administration and no true democracy tolerates governmental omnipotence even after winning a free and fair election.
But in addition to its disarray, APNU of course, along with the AFC has a particular problem, and that is the attempt to rig the election in 2020. One might have thought that the first named party would have been anxious to have the court case quickly dispatched, so it could start to try and move on, but apparently not. Its situation was aggravated by an intervention during a symposium on Burnham’s legacy last month, when Hamilton Green in crude terms advocated rigging the elections. Hardly surprisingly the President seized on it at Babu Jaan, saying it represented “the enemy of the soul of our nation,” which must be destroyed by the truth and by facts. One suspects we will be hearing a lot about rigging and Mr Green on the coming campaign trail.
One thing that the President and General Secretary did not mention in their addresses was constitutional reform, an important element if they are really seeking unity. They think they will achieve it by lifting the economic status of the nation and not dealing with the opposition. It is a naïve approach which while it might increase their votes in the next election, will not fully answer the fundamental problem of our divide. Democracy is about a framework which will accommodate a variety of views in addition to allowing for compromise. Dr Jagan’s vision notwithstanding, the PPP is not good at either.
We might be in for a tiresome year, politically speaking, full of diatribe.
