Children will do the right things online

The problem with Bharrat Jagdeo

THE problem with Bharrat Jagdeo’s lust for power is that he is willing to sacrifice the stability, security and economy of the nation, so that he and his cronies are able to assume office. As the political stalemate surrounding the March 2 Regional and General Elections continues to unfold in a protracted and litigious court setting, Mr Jagdeo relentlessly continues to forward his narrative of electoral fraud. To this end, in recent comments made by Mr Jagdeo in relation to the possibility of international sanctions being imposed on Guyana and particular officials, he maintains that his party is trying to fight to avoid sanctions, but are also asking the international community to stay resolute in bringing sanctions down heavily on those who would put the country and democracy at risk.

Mr Jagdeo’s comments make little sense in that it is unclear whether he is fighting against sanctions being imposed on Guyana and Guyanese, or whether he is fighting for them to be imposed on Guyana and Guyanese. The contradiction in his statement must be glaringly obvious to readers; however if they are not, it appears as though that whilst Mr Jagdeo does not want sanctions, he also wants sanctions. In any case, his jumbled diatribe only serves one purpose and that is to bolster support for his failing manoeuvres to secure a victory for the People’s Progressive Party/Civic (PPP/C).

Mr Jagdeo asserts that the Guyana Elections Commission (GECOM) knows that the results for Region Four are fraudulent because according to him, the international community has said so. Whilst citizens would be aware that the international community has made brief comments on Guyana’s electoral impasse on Twitter, it remains to be seen that they have been so deeply involved in our affairs and the electoral process as to be deemed reliable witnesses to electoral fraud. On that matter, we would be better placed to examine the statements of the various observer groups who were observing the tabulation process of the contested Region Four results. Upon doing so, it would become evident that what really transpired on the night of 4th March and morning of 5th March when the PPP/C strongmen bulldozed through GECOM like rabid animals, brandishing weapons and making demands, was a blatant attempt to derail the verification process in order to cast doubt on the elections, which were, until that point, deemed free, fair, credible and transparent.

Mr Jagdeo appears to believe that when he assumes office, those who have obstructed his ascension to said position would be dealt with at that time. He has asserted that he has seen serious police actions and that they must be resistant. He has warned that the police need to know that there will be consequences for them too if they continue to take political instructions and harass people. We can only assume Mr Jagdeo is referring to the Guyana Police Force (GPF) operating within their constitutional mandate which is and has always been to serve and protect the Guyanese people. His allegations of the GPF harassing people is troublesome as the GPF has shown

enormous restraint when dealing with factions of the Guyanese society who have, at the behest of Mr Jagdeo and his associates, been encouraged to go out and protest. And not in the constitutional fashion which is permitted by law, but by attacking schoolchildren, members of the GPF and sadly a member of the nursing profession; not forgetting the wanton destruction of property.

In addition to Mr Jagdeo’s threats against the GPF, he has asserted that he is coming up with a list of names from GECOM, the government and business leaders who are supportive of them (the government) and intends to pursue action against them. Whilst it remains unclear exactly what action Mr Jagdeo intends to take or is indeed able to take, we can only assume that he will engage in his nuanced approach to conflict resolution.

The most outrageous statement made by the leader of the opposition is that if President Granger is sworn in, Mr Jagdeo intends to treat Irfaan Ali as the president of Guyana. Mr.Jagdeo has said that wherever President Granger goes, he would be met with protests and that he would urge people to stop paying their taxes and that the opposition would not be part of any parliament and would take their resistance to a different level.

Mr Jagdeo’s rhetoric is incendiary and reckless. His comments and statements are rarely based in facts and serve as desperate attempts to promulgate his baseless narrative of electoral fraud. His behaviour is reminiscent of the old adage that empty barrels do indeed make the most noise.

Time to give shared governance a chance

Dear Editor,

IAM writing about the current political stand-off in my beloved country Guyana. As an elder who saw the country torn apart by violence in the 1960s, I fear that we are on a path back to the future. I offer my perspective as the former publisher and CEO of the Guyana Graphic, the largest newspaper in Guyana during the tumultuous period before it was taken over by the Burnham government in 1974. I am someone who contributed to my country as an actor and playwright, including the play “Guyana Legend” which was the official theatrical cultural presentation at Guyana’s independence celebrations in 1966.

Last week, the Working People’s Alliance, a member of Guyana’s coalition government, and political commentator and academician, Mr Dhanpaul, expressed grave concern over the health of Guyana’s democracy and called for a shared-governance model to avoid severe consequences in the racially polarised country.

These represent the first thoughts from anyone to help solve the political impasse in Guyana. It is patently clear that neither of the two political entities can effectively govern Guyana without the involvement of the other. We need to remember that Guyana was built on the blood, sweat and tears of an enslaved people who had their cultural identity, religious beliefs and their very children torn from them.

Those who came after them, owe them a debt which they must never forget.

The descendants of these slaves and their mixed-blood descendants still suffer today from the insecurities which this loss of identity inculcated, and which has resulted in our crippling incapacity to help each other and any others.

Those indentured servants who came after slavery was abolished had the luxury of retaining their cultural identity, their religious beliefs and their ability to make and keep their families, thus building a sense of community which the slaves and their descendants never had. Our indentured brothers and sisters had the luxury of knowing who they are and thus how to help each other.

If Guyana is to survive and prosper, then we have to accommodate these two realities and accept that neither one nor the other identity can prosper without the involvement of the other.

Shared governance -- as Mr Dhanpaul had suggested -- is the only way to start this process. It will be fraught with difficulties, but the alternative is infinitely worse. As my old grandmother used to say, “THERE IS BAD... AND WORSER THAN BAD.” We have no option but to choose the former. Constitutional reform is essential and must include under the PR system, the right of constituents to choose their own to represent their constituency in elections. A new constitution must also include, the right of parties to form coalitions AFTER elections.

I am hoping to provoke further positive comments to assist Guyana in solving its problems.

Otherwise, I fear, that the road to El Dorado will lead us to the gates of this fabled country with riches untold, but we will spend the time destroying each other in order to climb the walls to be first inside, instead of working together to break the gates so that we can all enter together and benefit from the riches therein. I hope that this falls on fertile ears, especially young Guyanese.