JAGDEO LETS OUT SOME STEAM
PEEPING TOM
Kaieteur News
July 16, 2004
The President of Guyana left Guyana for Grenada last week and came back a new man. The Head of State returned a man invigorated and ready to throw down the gauntlet to his adversaries. What emerged was a tough talking, decisive leader no longer prepared to be dragged out into long squabbles.
On the economic front, Jagdeo has always demonstrated impatience with the progress of the country. But politically, he showed very little spirit and seemed incapable of making the tough decisions for which great leaders are known. His comments after his arrival from a CARICOM meeting indicate that we may be in for a new period of assertiveness by the President.
The three spirited comments of Jagdeo concerned the wildlife trade, a vote of no confidence in a United Nations diplomat and a decision to discontinue the dialogue with the opposition. Today’s column will discuss each of these three issues and what they mean for the Guyanese people.
The President may have been intemperate when it came to his threat to close down the wildlife trade. But the threat reflects the frustration of a man who has assigned a portfolio to some of his most trusted lieutenants, only to be disappointed.
Closing down the trade is not the answer. A threat to do so is a shortsighted solution from someone who is now challenged to find viable alternative ways of earning foreign exchange. If the trade is shut down, it is the country that will lose and not those who have created the problem in the first place. Down will go the limited markets we have secured, our international reputation as a supplier and a chance to finally make this sector work for the country.
This column has suggested a way out. De-link the trade from political control; establish a transparent system of licensing and quota allocation; review export levies, enshrine these in the law; and improve the management of the wildlife authority by establishing a clear barrier between the scientific authority and the management authority.
The president’s comments on the wildlife trade can be interpreted as a lack of confidence in the way that the wildlife trade has been managed. It is now left to those responsible for the management of the trade to step aside since the threat to close the trade down came while they were in the driver’s seat. When a president is dissatisfied to the extent that he contemplates closing down a valuable source of alternative income for the country, then it should be a signal for persons to recuse themselves.
The management of the wildlife trade is not the only thing that the President was dissatisfied with. In his post CARICOM meeting press conference, he also confirmed his loss of confidence in a top diplomat from the United Nations. Hazarding a guess as to the source of the President’s malcontent is not difficult. Most likely it would have had to do with the role of the local UN office in pressing for a Commission of Inquiry into the death squad allegations, something that the UN ought to have kept out of.
It has been some time since a Head of Government of our country has expressed a lack of confidence in a diplomat. My recollection indicates that not since just after independence have we had such an incident. And from this historical background and his prior political timidity, the president has shown a great deal of guts to come out and openly express his disapproval of the diplomat. This shows the President is not mincing his words and is acting sternly and decisively.
Whether his judgment on the matter is sound or not is not really relevant. As long as the President of a country expresses a loss of confidence in a diplomat, it is best advised that the diplomat be removed. Of course there is bound to be some resistance since international organizations never allow foreign governments to dictate their choice of personnel.
However, in deciding on the appointment or recall of a diplomat, it is usual for the respective foreign country or organisation to take account of the government's views about individuals. The correct thing for the UN to do, therefore, is to recall the diplomat.
We can criticise the president for acting too late. Some time ago, a conference on Guyana was being organised without adequate consultation with the government. Here was a foreign mission taking it upon itself to decide on the future of our country and inviting people overseas for a conference without any meaningful discussion with the government of the day.
This was direct meddling in the politics of the country and the government should have expelled those diplomats involved. The expression of no confidence by the president should be a warning to those diplomats to be careful about the agenda they are pursuing in Guyana.
Finally the President has bid riddance to the dialogue process. This column had in the past urged the government to dump that process, not because it was a failure but because it could not be sustained and was no substitute for the traditional role of the opposition in parliament. Elections are a short while away and neither the government or opposition will want to be seen as cooperating with each other during the period of campaigning.
Dialogue has to lead to structural changes such as constitutional and other legal reforms. The President is correct to call off the constructive engagement process. The opposition should now assume their rightful role of providing alternative polices and exercising oversight to the government.
This has to be done through parliament. The dialogue and constructive engagement processes are now over. And we must move on with our lives. Those processes are no substitute for a militant and vibrant opposition operating with greater powers and latitude in a more inclusive parliament.
Well done, Jagdeo. I support you one hundred per cent. You get on with the job of ruling and forgot about this nonsense about dialogue and constructive engagement.