I want to respond to your news article, ‘Jagdeo renews pitch for partnership with opposition,’ (January 15), in which President Bharrat Jagdeo’s reported signalling of a renewed interest in ‘enhanced collaboration’ with the political opposition is being viewed by members of the political opposition with skepticism or just another hollow call in which his political rhetoric does not match his political reality. In short, what he says does not support what he does, and that’s just being politically correct and putting it mildly.
After reading the article, I quickly glanced at the SN ‘Related Articles’ link to see the headlines of other news articles related to the one under discussion and after perusing each of the four related articles, which I recommend readers to also do if they want to know how serious the President is, I came to the solid conclusion that his latest renewed pitch for partnership with the opposition is not premised on what is in the best interest of the nation, but his own political aspirations. The President has had two terms or ten years in which to partner with the political opposition in meaningful and fruitful ways, but most political observers believe he is simply being politically convenient with his latest call.
For those who don’t have access to Internet or are too busy to go to the ‘Related Articles’ link, here is a snapshot of the captions and the dates: 1) ‘AFC writes Jagdeo on reviving talks,’ (April 2, 2009; 2) ‘No meetings since November (2006) between Jagdeo and parliamentary opposition parties on framework for enhanced political cooperation,’ (February 11, 2007); 3) ‘Opposition says dialogue at standstill,’ (December 16, 2007, and 4) ‘Development not dependent on political cooperation – Jagdeo,’ (December 28, 2009). And if readers take the time to read each of these related articles they are more than likely to arrive at the same conclusion I have. But the one article that paints the President as oozing with unbridled arrogance and unabashed hypocrisy is the latest one dated December 28, 2009, because it paints a picture of a man who thinks he alone knows it all and he alone can do it all. But less than a month after his December 28, 2009 foot-in-mouth political faux pas, the President does an about-face without even trying to rationalize the inherent contradictions in his two separate sets of remarks. What gives?
The political convenience argument does have some merit, if only because the President realizes that if his LCDS concept is to be realized in a big way, he will need to assure foreign donors that Guyana is politically stable. However, it does not help him sell this stability pitch when he gets up and says national development is not dependent on political cooperation. After all, the lack of political cooperation, resulting in street protests and demonstrations after 1992, helped to portray Guyana as unstable and undermined Guyana’s ability to attract potential foreign investors. Now, the only thing worse than that unstable picture is for the President, at this critical juncture, to give the impression he is running some sort of dictatorship in which he does not need the cooperation of his political opposition to help develop Guyana.
Unfortunately for him, with the one thing he leaned on heavily to help develop Guyana – LCDS – pretty much a no-go in Copenhagen, the President does not have anything much left to work with in terms of trying to leave a lasting legacy if he goes ahead and demits office in 2011, and this now begs the question: what does his future look like after 2011? He did say in an off-the-cuff manner of speaking that he may take up an offer in the international job market, but without an impressive legacy what exactly are the achievements on his resumé that will impress his potential employers? Being a globe-trotting advocate of climate change may have helped his image and chances, but while image is good for PR, it is not an acceptable substitute for substance in a world where substance trumps symbolism or style. Besides, a thorough background probe of his governance at home could undercut his credibility and chances of possible employment in any reputable post on the international scene.
The only option left for the President, then, is to try and either retain the presidency or at least be a shadow figure (perhaps party leader) with the most powerful influence in government after 2011. In other words, if he can become leader of the PPP, he can get to do what the party leadership failed to do when he was in power: run the Office of the President from Freedom House. And being in a position today where he literally wields more power than the PPP’s General Secretary, whenever he talks about any type of partnership with the political opposition, he is actually sending a message to the PPP leadership that his voice has more authority than that of any leading member of the party. Frankly, he may be positioning himself to become the person the political opposition must deal with after 2011 if the need ever arises.
That is not to say he will not receive some form of opposition from within the PPP en route to his goal, but he certainly has enough time between now and 2011 to consolidate his position by taking full advantage of the powers of the presidency to make policy statements that should have been reflective of the party’s position on issues pertinent to the country’s future. In case observers haven’t noticed, the PPP General Secretary who said recently that he would consider becoming the party’s presidential candidate if it were offered, also said that the PPP is open to talks and cooperation with the political opposition, so why is the President now pitching for a partnership with the political opposition? Is he echoing the General Secretary or is he staking out his own ground? The last thing the PPP would want at this time is to publicly bare its differences over aspirations for leadership positions, but this may be unavoidable if the battle for party leadership involves this President.
In any event, Guyanese voters would do well to pay attention to who is saying what and why, because the outcome of the battle for the PPP leadership position could determine the kind of leadership Guyana will have to deal with beyond 2011 if most voters have not matured enough to realize that ethnic voting has not delivered in over half a century. A passing look at the political performance cards of the President shows he is more vindictive than visionary, while the PPP General Secretary shows he is more an ideologue than an innovator, and so if either of these two is what Guyana ends up with as President, then our progress will continue to be measured in baby steps rather than giant strides.
The only thing worse than having either of the two as President is having the failed PPP and failed PNC come together in the name of shared governance without a powerful independent referee to keep them accountable and transparent before the people. Neither party has shown an inclination to undergo major internal party reforms so any shared governance deal between the two will only give us more of the same, or worse, but this time around with a two-headed political monster instead of the usual one-headed type.
Editor, it was former US President, George Washington, who once said, “An army of asses led by a lion is better than an army of lions led by an ass.” And so as Guyanese voters endure the political speeches and personality sparks leading up to 2011, they owe it to themselves to emerge from all the political jungle rhetoric and rabble-rousing as trained and healthy lions who will pick a proud, productive and protective lion to lead.
Yours faithfully,
Emile Mervin
