CARICOM: No double standard on Guyana
Rickey Singh column
FACED with their own domestic social, economic and political problems, of varying degrees, Caribbean Community (CARICOM) governments must be careful about getting involved in resolving problems in Guyana that they may be carefully approaching differently at home. The guiding principle, it is felt, should be no double standard. However well-intentioned, the CARICOM leaders must not allow themselves to be overwhelmed by details of governance in Guyana on some issues, land selection and house lots committees for instance, to the detriment of major issues. Or, for that matter, with verbal wrangles over alleged discrimination and victimisation while, of course, not ignoring such problems as they focus on why they became involved in Guyana in the first place. The CARICOM leaders would be aware that across the Community - and not just in the so-called dual societies of Trinidad and Tobago, Guyana and Suriname - there are recurring disputes over issues involving alleged racial and political discrimination, claims of victimisation and corruption. They would also be mindful that for all the posturings and threats to perpetuate a climate of instability in Guyana, the country was governed for 28 years by one party, the People's National Congress, without free and fair elections from 1968 until October, 1992. During that period, NO bipartisan mechanism was in place to address racism, land selection, victimisation or whatever ills. Now, when they are urging, as they did recently at Chaguaramas, new President, Bharrat Jagdeo, and PNC leader Desmond Hoyte to meet without prior conditions and to advance the process of inter-party dialogue with the help of civil society, they must also be aware of the divisions within civil society itself. Constant claims about what the `PNC says', or `demands' must, of necessity, be balanced against what the governing People's Progressive Party (PPP)/Civic administration has already done, and is doing, to confirm to the `Herdmanston Accord' and subsequent `St. Lucia Statement' on the major issues. It is also useful to remember that a CARICOM Audit - the first order of business of the Community's engagement following the '97 election - had confirmed independent reports as well as that of the country's Chief Election Officer of the results of the freely expressed will of the electorate on December 15, 1997. And to date, for all the length of time in court proceedings, NOTHING has yet been reported to suggest that either defective management, errors or malpractices could have made ANY SIGNIFICANT difference to the outcome to the nationally and internationally supervised election. That poll once again brought defeat for the PNC, the party that has NEVER WON a free election since 1968. Prime Minister Kenny Anthony of St. Lucia, who has special responsibility for the implementation of the `Herdmanston Accord' and `St. Lucia Statement', said during his recent visit to Guyana that all efforts must be made to ensure that the 2001 deadline for new national elections is met. I think so too. Anthony should also be aware that the PNC leader, who is yet to come up with a rationale explanation for failing to meet with the elected President of Guyana to deal with macro national issues, was allowed to serve for seven years - two more than a normal five-year term - to facilitate proper arrangements for the conduct of new national elections. It is crucial for an effective electoral machinery to be in place for a new poll. In the case of Janet Jagan and the PPP/Civic, they sacrificed, in the national interest, two of their five-year term in office and kept firmly to the pledge to pursue the central issue of constitutional reform ahead of new election. Disappointingly, instead of peace and reconciliation, they were to subsequently face the politics of destabilisation by those who seem to have a fascination with making the country "ungovernable" but who had to be legally rescued to maintain their seats in Parliament. Successively rigged elections, no local government elections for at least two decades and a seven-year term for the Hoyte presidency are some of the realities CARICOM cannot afford to forget in any objective and meaningful involvement to help resolve political problems in Guyana. Getting sucked in on micro issues, CARICOM heads of government could well ignore also that it was the politics of division and disruption of Hoyte's PNC and its boycott of the Parliament for six months that had seriously affected the time-frame for action as envisaged by the `Herdmanston Accord'. Nor can the CARICOM heads' concern for "good governance and democracy" in Guyana ignore the legacy of social decay, economic ruin, rampant discrimination and fear of 28 years of PNC rule whenever they get reports on dispute settlements arising from the inter-party dialogue between the PPP and PNC. When the Community intervened in Guyana's post-1997 election problems by brokering the `Herdmanston Accord' of January, 1998, it was generally understood that it would maintain an active interest in the major issues of constitutional and electoral reform and race relations. There needs to be a critical review of the journey since then and why, for example, the Community has failed to move Hoyte - who is yet to show any real interest in reconciliation politics - to a meeting with the President of Guyana. The PNC, which is today making a lot of fuss about race relations, had refused to participate in a Race Relations Commission established by the government under the chairmanship of the Anglican Bishop, Randolph George. The CARICOM governments must also ask of themselves in any consideration of the litany of "demands" being made by the PNC what portion, if any, they would welcome in their own domestic political situation, bearing in mind the mandate of a freely-elected government to govern. With seven weeks more before the expiry of the services of the CARICOM Facilitator, Maurice King, CARICOM leaders need to consider whether Hoyte is having some fun at their expense in constantly making "demands" without paying heed to their repeated calls that he should meet with the country's President and discuss issues of national interest. It is not for Hoyte to define or determine in what capacity Jagdeo will meet with him. Jagdeo is the constitutionally elected President of Guyana. No court has decided otherwise. And the frequently displayed arrogance of the PNC leader cannot alter this reality either.
If Hoyte and Jagdeo fail to meet, then certain problems about which the PNC continue to complain, are unlikely to be resolved. Now, amid the distressing features of party politics in Guyana, enters Cheddi (Joey) Jagan Jnr. with the latest organisation that thinks it can unite the country under new leadership. In a country where political parties keep multiplying like pirate `television' stations of doubtful value, the announced intention of the son of the late President Cheddi Jagan to have his Guyana Alliance for Progress (GAP) as an alternative to the PPP and PNC, would hardly be taken seriously by either party. Nor should it be, with all the deficiencies of both parties. Neither his mother, who resigned as President last August, nor his sister, Nadira, would be surprised by the action of Jagan Jnr. But he seems to think that being the son of a political legend, great national hero and Caribbean icon would be a plus for him. He may come to be even more bitterly disappointed than that minority party which already goes by the name of `Alliance for Guyana' (AFG) and knows much about the pain of attempting to gain multi-racial acceptance for electoral victory - away from the PPP and PNC.
|