The resignation of Mrs. Janet Jagan
by Festus L. Brotherson, Jr.
FATE controls half of our lives, reminded Niccolo Machiavelli in `The Prince'. We may plan with the most meticulousness for events to occur the way we want. Thus, we usually draw on precedents, experiences, current circumstances and our reading of them as a guide. But fate, luck, chance or fortuna, as Machiavelli called it, and which could be 'good' or 'bad,' will always have the final say. Former President Janet Jagan's decision to demit the presidency of Guyana can, in part, be understood in such a context. The unexpected passing of her late husband and statesman, Dr. Cheddi Jagan, produced such an outpouring of genuine sorrow that it helped Mrs. Jagan make the decision to seek his office. The fragility of the then less than five year old democracy made this a wise move in service of already planned development pursuits and maintaining cohesion in the East Indian-dominated People's Progressive Party (PPP) and its PPP/Civic government; the latter being keeping of a promise for inclusive government outside of the standard qualification of political party loyalty. The decision was a good one on another and perhaps more important fact about racial politics in Guyana. Given the latter's stranglehold in Guyana, it was difficult to imagine any black or East Indian leader in the PPP who would have easily been accepted within the party and, more significantly, in the entire country as chief executive of Guyana. Bear in mind that neither the black-dominated People's National Congress nor the PPP has ever had the top leadership in their respective parties (except for Cheddi Jagan's failed early 1950s experiment with Forbes Burnham in a united PPP), and certainly not as chief state executive, outside their black and Indian bases respectively. Besides, one might argue, precisely because of the intensity of race which has led to political killings, other violence and multiple forms of sabotage, there simply was not sufficient trust in the fractured society and especially in the rank and file of either dominant party to break the tradition. So Mrs. Jagan's candidacy seemed to be a wise compromise. She had lived in Guyana for 57 years as the loyal spouse of Dr. Jagan and had amassed an exemplary record of selfless, dedicated service to the people of Guyana - including senior ministerial positions, serving a six month jail sentence during the colonial era, and back-breaking volunteer work. Sadly, negative fortuna or fate interfered vengefully because this indefatigable champion of the people and country she loved happened to be a Caucasian woman and, more speciously, although a naturalised citizen, she had not been "born in Guyana." The latter argument might have had some merit since it is very unusual for any country's constitution to allow citizens not born in there to become its chief executive. But there are three things worth remembering. First, the illogic of this argument is it is quite all right for native Guyanese to lead Guyana into misery but woe betide any one else to try to help correcting things; regardless of how exceptionally qualified and patriotic they may be! In addition, as columnist Allan Fenty humorously reminded only last Friday, August 13, 1999, the heavily rushed Guyana Constitution of 1980, with all its flaws (like the one permitting non-native Guyanese to ascend to the presidency) was the architectural design of the late PNC founder-leader and President Forbes Burnham, his Attorney General Mohamed Shahabbuddeen and in particular, current party leader Desmond Hoyte. The third point to consider is that although we like to wear the fig leaf of nationalism so proudly from time to time, it was the late statesman of Jamaica Michael Manley who in 1980 saw clearly that sometimes it is sheer folly to posture like the emperor wearing no clothes. The great Caribbean thinker Franz Fanon had discerned this much earlier. But Manley's point was particularly important because he was speaking about the twilight years of the 20th Century. Put bluntly, it is largely irrelevant for the poorest nations in the hemisphere to pompously posture in this manner. Consider that they might be destined in any event for trusteeship by Multinational Corporations (MNCs) before too long, under United Nations (UN) mandate - so dangerously incompetent have been their efforts to provide the basic requisites of human life and decency for their citizens. The point is Mrs. Jagan's decision to seek, and then her winning of the presidency, backfired. Clearly, the unspoken intention was for her to be a caretaker president until her term expired or perhaps even before that by calling general elections any time before then as is the practice in Westminster-style democracies. This was not to be. This good woman was subjected to the vilest abuse on racial grounds from a narrow but extremely vocal segment of the Guyanese community more than any other political leader in the history of post-independence politics. Every action she took was placed under the proctoscope of racial analysis. Every action she did not take was placed under a microscope of racial discontent. In a memorable telephone conversation a few months ago, when I had called to mention growing charges of racism and corruption, her voice changed from its customary effervescent tone as she said, in part, "The problem of race is a very difficult one and some people don't like me because of my race." It was said with such poise that it took a while for the enormity of her point to sink in. It was widely known that Mrs. Jagan had a heart ailment. It is also medically axiomatic that such complaints are severely exacerbated by unrelenting negative stress. It is equally plausible that her recent illness might have been a cause and effect relationship between her ailment and unrelieved stress. But in her graceful exit speech to the nation last Sunday, August 8, 1999, in typical style of putting the nation first, there was not one hint of this. As time passes, it will become clear that one of this superior Guyanese patriot's outstanding achievements during her 20-month stewardship of Guyana was her ability to sustain the country's fragile democratic political system. She steadfastly refused to declare states-of-emergency in the face of great pressures to do so, recognising that such a step, as The Stabroek News had editorialised, would have probably ruined the foundations of the infirm democracy. The late scholar, Max Weber, had this to say about political leadership: "The successful statesman is an artist, concerned with nuances of public mood, approximations of operative motives, guesswork as to the tactics of opponents, back-breaking work in unifying his (her) own side by compromise and concession." We can benefit from this timeless insight when reflecting on the career of this great lady not only during her presidency but also throughout her more than 50 years of selfless service in her adopted homeland. In the end, it was unfortunate fortuna that brought a quicker than desired finish to her chief executive work.
|