For the last ten years, it has been his fight that has been the defining characteristic of his presidency, which was expected to herald a new beginning for a country long held hostage by a history of suspicion and strife. Certainly, he had none of the baggage of his predecessors and so his unlikely accession, formalised at one minute after 3 pm on August 11, 1999, was to a young generation a sign of hope for the national reconciliation needed to move the country forward; what Jagdeo once described as the mandate of the Guyanese people. Perhaps they were asking for too much and Jagdeo now faces what could be the most potentially damaging period in his presidency with allegations in a New York court that his government cooperated with drug trafficker Roger Khan in the fight against crime. The period of collaboration was allegedly post-2002 when five dangerous prisoners fled the Camp Street jail and sparked a bloody rampage never before seen in the country’s history, mowing down two dozen policemen and dozens of others in the process and putting the Jagdeo administration under enormous stress. The accusations of collaboration with Khan have since galvanized greater cooperation among opposition parties who have recently embarked on a campaign to hold the government accountable.
At 35, Jagdeo was the hemisphere’s youngest head of state, a dubious achievement insofar as it would be seen as both political advantage and political liability in the run up to his taking office. In his favour was the fact that he was a young leader who offered the possibility of change-a break from the destructive politics of the past. On the other hand, here was a young leader (the “Lil’ boy,” as he was dubbed in the winning calypso the next year) who was untried, untested, and all but completely unprepared for the challenges of leading a nation. And while it might seem naïve now, there was also the doubt that he battled from the very start: Could he really be his own man?
If there were any reservations, he answered resoundingly two years ago, when during the row over the pulling of state advertising from Stabroek News, he censured late former President Janet Jagan for calling for a reversal of the policy. She had said that “government advertisements should be spread through the media on a fair basis, despite circulation and content”-the newspaper has always maintained the decision was politically motivated. Jagdeo responded by saying Mrs Jagan, as “a private citizen” was entitled to her opinion. “Her opinion is not government’s policy, especially when the matter relates to the use of taxpayers’ funds,” he said.
Days before the 1997 elections, Mrs Jagan had portentously identified the young Finance Minister Jagdeo as her successor, in the event that she could not serve out the full-term. His succession was announced when he was named as part of the PPP/C’s “A Team,” along with Jagan and Sam Hinds, which triggered concerns about the deliberate manipulation of the constitution as it required Prime Minister Hinds to resign to facilitate Jagdeo’s appointment. It was clear that Jagan had set up her successor, although Freedom House has always maintained it was a collective decision. (The party leadership was said to be split between Moses Nagamootoo and Ralph Ramkarran as the two likely choices until Jagan suggested Jagdeo as a third option, eventually securing the consensus.)
Jagdeo was a former economist in the PNC’s State Planning Secretariat who became a special adviser to the Minister of Finance in 1992, Junior Minister of Finance in October 1993 and was elevated to senior Minister of Finance in March 1995. It’s anyone’s guess what Jagan had in mind when she favoured him as her successor, but when failing health forced her to demit office in the middle of an abbreviated term, she assured the nation that he was firm in dealing with government business and was not afraid to make decisions. She was also confident that he would maintain the dignity of the office of the president. Looking ahead, she said the process of healing the wounds of the nation would take courage and strong will, and an environment without violence and disruption of the daily lives of the people. “The presidency will be in good hands,” she assured, wile ominously warning, “The future of this country is at stake and we cannot let an iron fist rule. We have had enough of that. Our task is to unite a nation and to do this we must strive for better ethnic and cultural understanding and give assurances and security to those who feel secure.”
‘An emissary of renewed hope?’
Measured by his own words, Jagdeo seemed to understand the great expectations by which history would judge his presidency. In his inaugural address, he committed himself to being “an emissary of renewed hope” and a healing process in society. “I promise to put my best effort and that of my party into the realisation of a Guyana of which we all feel a part, an equal part and Guyana which we can all feel justly proud,” he told the nation. Further, acknowledging that for the country to move forward, there was need for national cohesion, he presented his presidency as an opportunity. Jagdeo said, “I offer you a chance to break with vicious circle of insecurity… we need to trust each other in our ethnically diverse community. We need to break away from this bondage of victim and victor perceptions. Let us look at our real worth as human beings and create a civilised environment in which we can realise our dreams.”
Ten years later, he has two major national election victories under his belt and remains at face value the most popular politician in the country. According to the latest NACTA poll, nearly half the country would re-elect Jagdeo if he were not barred from seeking a third presidential term, with no viable alternative in the opposition. What is more, the electorate makes a distinction between the government and the President, with a large majority dissatisfied with the performance of the former as distinct from that of Jagdeo. The poll numbers suggest that Jagdeo is seen as more likeable than government as he is seen as being more effective in getting things done, describing him as “a super Minister.” (Many non-PPP supporters also say they like Jagdeo personally, but are not pleased with some of his Cabinet colleagues and some individuals who surround the President. They believe the President should make some changes.) Respondents, who said he is often approached to intervene for a solution to their concerns, described him as personable and approachable. One reason they gave for supporting another Jagdeo term is uncertainty about whether other presidential aspirants would be less successful in maintaining “the development” policies of the last couple of decades.
According to his official bio, President Jagdeo’s tenure in office has seen “unprecedented social and economic reform in Guyana, with improved access to education, rehabilitation of the health system, far-reaching land reform, the biggest expansion of the housing sector in Guyana’s history, expansion of the water and sanitation systems, and large-scale development of the road, river and air transport networks.” Further, it says the national debt was substantially reduced, new public procurement and competition laws were passed, and reforms to the tax, fiscal and investment regimes were implemented. It also highlights his tenure as Chairman of the Board of Governors of the International Monetary Fund (IMF), a position he occupied between September 2005 and September 2006. He has also been awarded the Pushkin Medal by the Government of Russia, and the Pravasi Bharatiya Samman Award by the Government of India.
More recently, the President Jagdeo has emerged as a crusader against climate change, his advocacy leading Time Magazine to name him one of the “Heroes of the Environment” last year.
A flattering assessment at the very least, though the President has also had to contend with unflattering ones. It is ironic but Jagdeo’s style, if not his substance, has drawn him comparisons with former PNC President Forbes Burnham; his administration has been charged as being rife with corruption and largely authoritarian, attracting the label “elected dictatorship.”
One senior political analyst who prefers to remain anonymous describes Jagdeo’s presidency thus:
His party executive gave him little room to be his own person. Unfortunately, he lacked the experience and the wisdom to develop his own role gradually. He grew arrogant and petulant. In many instances, he acted in ways that were at variance with the constitution. Corruption spread to every level of the administration. In the end, the verdict of history would be that he lacked the experience, the maturity, and the wisdom, to help move the country forward with consensus. Often, addressing senior opposition leaders, he was shrill. The country needed a leader who was a healer. In the end, he was divisive. That will be the verdict of history on him. We have to hope that the next President would be wise, and would be a healer.
Indeed, the so-called mandate of the Guyanese people remains unfulfilled. To be sure, the president has given more than ample encouragement to the idea that he could engineer national unity and reconciliation, but there remains no significant cooperation between the government and opposition in or out of the National Assembly. Both he and his counterparts blame the lack of trust and good faith for the failure of successive initiatives. The racially polarising political divisions continue to generate calls for greater inclusivity in governance, in order to ensure stability and greater cooperation in combating crime, which is seen as the biggest threat to and social and economic development.
When he took office, he extended a hand to an opposition leader who did not recognise his legitimacy. Later, after securing his own mandate with an electoral victory, Jagdeo used his March 31, 2001 inauguration to plug unity and reconciliation, inviting citizens to come aboard a ship setting sail for progress and prosperity. “Rather than becoming a divisive event, we can let these elections remind us of the necessity for our coming together for the common good of our country and people. I can assure Guyana that the hand I reach out will be friendly and brotherly, and in accepting it the PNC Leadership should have no fear that they are doing so as anything other than as equals,” he said, before announcing a national conference to discuss ways of taking the country forward. He said the platform would be constructed within the context of the National Development Strategy and the programmes advanced by the various political parties. “However, inclusivity should not be restricted to the legislative arm of government. I hope that when I meet the leader of the opposition we will discuss this matter further. It is critical that we engage each other in dialogue. We should always reach out and talk to each other. In this way we would be really fulfilling the mandate of all Guyanese…,” he declared.
By September 2, 2006, when he took the oath of office for a third time, Jagdeo made yet another pledge to pursue national unity and development with the broadest participation across all divides. Although by that time he had been part of two unsuccessful attempts at dialogue with both the late Desmond Hoyte and his successor current opposition leader Robert Corbin, both the President and the country finally had the advantage of a post-electoral environment that was not marred by civil unrest. “I am fully aware of the responsibilities that now fall on my shoulders… These are responsibilities I cannot carry out alone. I need you to walk with me, as I walk with you along the road of development,” Jagdeo said during his swearing in. He promised there would be scope for all political parties to work together under an enhanced framework of political cooperation, rooted in the primacy of parliament, grounded in a system that is responsive and accountable, and extended to civil society to deepen its participation in decision-making.
To this end, he announced that he would meet with the leaders of the political parties represented in the Parliament in order to engage them in finding a way to cooperate in which they could contribute to national development. A meeting was held between the President and the PNCR, the AFC and GAP-ROAR in November that year but since then there has been no follow up, despite repeated requests by opposition parties.
Last March, following the Lusignan and Bartica massacres in which 23 people were killed, a National Stakeholder’s Forum was convened by the government and attracted broad participation by both political parties and civil society representatives. The process led to agreement on five areas, being the expeditious appointment of the five constitutional rights commissions and the Public Procurement Commission within a 90-day period; the urgent establishment of a parliamentary standing sectoral committee on national security; the activation of Constitutional Reform Committee; to ensure the meaningful and effective participation of civil society in the parliamentary process; and to explore an agreed mechanism for the continuation of the National Stakeholders’ Forum.
So far, only two of the rights commissions have been appointed, while the National Assembly has passed a motion to set up a parliamentary committee with oversight for the security sector. But both commissions and the committee are still to be set up.
Jagdeo continues to identify trust as the necessary basis for greater collaboration between the parties. “Because it is only through a period of building of trust that you have lasting arrangements in the future,” he said earlier in the year, when asked about the renewed calls by the main opposition PNCR for shared governance. Not surprisingly, the PNCR has laid the blame for failures to sustain cooperation at the feet of the head of state, while saying that Guyana will not see real development or prosperity until the resolution of our ethnically driven problems is treated as a national priority. As the basis for this approach, the party says there must be meaningful and constructive dialogue and reconciliation, which leads to a new national framework for governance to replace the outdated and anachronistic system by which Guyana is now governed.
‘A curse’
WPA co-leader and constitution expert Dr Rupert Roopnaraine makes the argument that a constructive political engagement is crucial to national unity, as far as political polarisation has coincided with racial polarisation for roughly half a century. “The contest for political power takes the form of a racial competition and it is a racial competition which only one section could win,” he explains, saying that the arithmetically superior group would prevail once the votes are counted and he was doubtful that the patterns would change. At the same time, he says this is the reason why there has been the need for constitutional solutions to address the situation, noting that it is not very hard to make the argument that there is discrimination in the award of contracts and the allocation of resources.
To bridge the political divide, the Menu of Measures prescribed by the 1998 Hardmanston Accord included sustained dialogue between the two main parties to foster greater harmony and confidence and resolving issues on which agreement could be reached. However, Roopnaraine says the successive failed engagements between President Jagdeo and the opposition have produced little more than acrimony, with the charges on both sides of bad faith, duplicity and lack of commitment. “It has never actually helped us to resolve issues,” he says, pointing out that its only achievement has been the Joint Task Force on Local Government Reform, which after more than eight years was abandoned in favour of a parliamentary review, because of the failure of the principals, including the President to resolve the issues. “All this talk of trust: [that] before you have a national government you have to have trust; we have to have national government because we don’t have trust,” he argues.
Roopnaraine admits that he was encouraged by Jagdeo’s promises in the beginning. What is more, he was buoyed by the fact that he was a young person from a new generation, free of the baggage of the other PPP leaders who had come out of the struggle of the 60s and 70s. After all, Jagdeo was arriving on the scene with “relatively clean hands” and no history of participation in the bitter conflicts of the past. “So that when he came on the scene, promising renewal and relief from all of this, people like myself, who were participants in the free and fair elections struggle in the 70s and 80s and so on, saw it was a real possibility of a new opening, a new hope, a new horizon and all of that,” Roopnaraine recalls. “Well, it frankly did not take long for Mr Jagdeo to accustom himself to the habits of the executive presidency-and the habits of the executive presidency are the habits of control and intransigence,” he adds.
In fact, Roopnaraine thinks the executive presidency something of a curse; one that he believes President Jagdeo has fallen victim to having seen a consolidation and expansion of the powers of the executive president over the last ten years. “Unfortunately I don’t think that Jagdeo has withstood those temptations, authoritarianism and so on,” he says, “He has, I think, from his recent conduct, not had the strength, maturity and self confidence to resist the worst temptations of the executive presidency.”
He says the main aim of the reform process, which was legislatively initiated in the same year as Jagdeo’s accession, was to reduce the powers of the executive while at the same time enhancing the powers of the National Assembly and other constitutional institutions. However, he says that during the constitutional reform process neither the ruling PPP/C and the main opposition PNC were warm to the idea of abolishing it for an arrangement with something more along the lines of the Trinidad and Tobago model, where the head of government is answerable to parliament. He is convinced the reforms did not go far enough to reduce the powers of the presidency and that the sloth in the implementation of agreed reforms points to a fundamental flaw-the reliance on the executive to give up its power. He says the recommendations have been met with maximum administrative delay and reluctance, pointing out that all the rights commissions are still not in place, while the standing committees that are talked up a lot continue to be hobbled a lack of resources. In particular, he noted the “absolute failure” to properly activate the Parliamentary Constitutional Reform Committee, which he says has the ultimate aim of ensuring the participation of civil society stakeholders who had been involved in the process. “There is the tendency of the president to look outwards and call in stakeholders whenever he faces a crisis,” Roopnaraine observes, citing the National Stakeholder’s Forum. “There was a lot of goodwill on the part of the stakeholders who hoped it would have been an institutionalised consultation that could have dealt with wider issues, [but] nothing happened, they made commitments and none of them materialised,” he said.
‘Honoured in the breach’
When asked earlier this year, why there had been no attempt to sustain the National Stakeholder’s Forum, Jagdeo said it was never envisaged as a forum to replace engagement in the National Assembly. “Throughout, we have sought to make the National Assembly the place where the deliberations could be done between the parties because of the openness of that forum and because the closed door sessions were not yielding results,” he said. He added that the Stakeholder’s Forum would continue, but indicated that it was “an ad hoc mechanism” to deal with various issues from time to time, rather than as a permanent mechanism to replace the National Assembly. Further, he pointed out that in the new constitution, the National Assembly can provide for civil society participation in its hearings where it can give views on certain matters.
Not long after, the Guyana Human Rights Association said the stakeholder process was “effectively dead.” It recommended that civil society focus on reforming the parliament towards greater constituency representation, to ensure wider participation in governance, including the implementation of Article 13 of the Constitution, which addresses greater participation of citizens in public life.
A Social Partners initiative, led by representatives of the Private Sector, the Bar Association and the Trades Union Congress worked unsuccessfully to secure the operationalising of Article 13, while trying to sustain engagement between the government and opposition on inclusive governance. However, there were objections about the organisations that constituted the Social Partners and the people who made up its delegation. The Office of the President (OP) would later exclude the Private Sector Commission (PSC) from engagements because government took offence to sentiments former PSC Chairman Dr Peter De Groot expressed to a gathering of the donor community.
Roopnaraine notes Article 13 continues to be “honoured in the breach” in Guyana, the same as the “meaningful consultation” which was introduced during the reform process. The constitution enjoins the President to have “meaningful consultations,” that includes the duty to ensure that each person or entity to be consulted is afforded a reasonable opportunity to express a considered opinion on the subject of the consultation as well as the preparation of a written record of the consultation and the circulation of the decision to stakeholders. Corbin has continually complained that President Jagdeo has failed to honour his duty to meaningfully consult, which in 2005 led to him challenging the legality of the President’s appointments to the Integrity Commission. More recently, he has maintained similar concerns about recent engagements to appoint a new Integrity Commission.
The declaratory and non-binding Caricom Charter of Civil Society, which has been adopted by Guyana, also reinforces the need for the government to genuinely consult the Social Partners to reach common understandings on and support for the objectives, content and implementation of national economic and social programmes and their respective roles and responsibility in good governance.
“As the years have gone by he has had less and less interest in reaching out and consulting with citizens and their organisations,” Roopnaraine says, opining that with the “increasing encroachment of organised crime into the politics of the country there has been a kind of “bunkerism” in the Office of the President, which can be seen in its defensiveness. He pointed to the recent response to the allegations emerging from Robert Simels’ trial in the US, where there are claims of links between the government and confessed drug trafficker Roger Khan.
For his part, Roopnaraine links the failure to achieve political cooperation in governance with the perpetuation of a lack of accountability by the administration, which he likens to the PNC government. He maintains that in a majoritarian Westminster system, where the government has been directed largely on the mandate of one ethnic group, a failure to account is inevitable. “You don’t need to satisfy the electorate because you can never lose,” he says.
