When President Jagdeo came to office he was touted as representing youth, with a vision which would usher in a vernal season in our old, tired politics. But when he opened his mouth at Babu John last Sunday, he carried us back half a century to the old days of winter, when suspicion, stereotyping and bitterness clouded the collective vision and undermined our sense of community. And this too on a solemn occasion to commemorate the memory of the late Presidents Cheddi and Janet Jagan. Memorial observances, it seems, are not accorded the respect they once were.
Disrespect apart, President Jagdeo’s ad hominem attacks on three individuals were enough to leave any normal civilized person gasping, coming as they did from a head of state. What made it more curious was the fact that two of the individuals who were the recipients of his abuse were not even presidential candidates, although one of them, Mr Raphael Trotman, is the Chairman of the AFC. Mr Sasenarine Singh, however, who has already refuted Mr Jagdeo’s allegations in the letters column of this newspaper is not even the prime ministerial candidate for the AFC, and one can only presume that he was targeted because he was once a member of the PPP and has, therefore, a certain amount of insider knowledge of that party. The intention was, therefore, to discredit him in the eyes of PPP supporters.
As for Mr Trotman, one supposes that the President’s remarks in relation to the reason for him declining a key position in the AFC were directed at PNC supporters, since some of them voted for the AFC the last time around. Given the head of state’s performance at Babu John and on other occasions, however, he would have to be a Pollyanna to sincerely believe that they would be swayed by last Sunday’s diatribe. If nothing else it might suggest that Mr Jagdeo regards the AFC as potentially capable of attracting support from both the major party constituencies in this country.
Be that as it may, most of his obloquy was reserved for Mr David Granger, the presidential candidate of the PNCR, whom he accused of having “blood on his hands.” He was referring to the shooting by the GDF of two PPP activists who were among a group attempting to block the army from removing ballot boxes following the 1973 election. Mr Granger himself had already stated in response to earlier allegations of a similar character that he was an army major stationed at Timehri at the time, and had no responsibilities in Berbice. Leader of the Opposition Robert Corbin repeated this on Friday, adding that Mr Granger was not then in the management and control of the GDF and was also not a member of the directorate of the PNC or the government.
A head of state has absolutely no business ignoring a statement of denial from a presidential candidate in relation to such a serious allegation unless he has very solid evidence to the contrary. And clearly he does not. As it is, he has by implication accused the former army officer of telling a falsehood when he denied a personal connection to the 1973 events. No President of a democratic country should be caught besmirching a candidate’s character (or anyone else’s) in this fashion, least of all on a public occasion; that is not politics, it is slander.
And if it is that being a former member of the GDF in PNC times is enough to condemn one, whether or not one was directly associated with what happened all those years ago, then Mr Jagdeo should remember that his former Minister of Home Affairs and current High Commissioner to India was also a member of the GDF during the Burnham era. That was not seen as an impediment to his appointment under the PPP/Civic, however, and in and of itself neither should it have been.
This does not diminish what happened in 1973, but the larger context of that incident in terms of the rigging of elections between 1968 and 1985 is well known, and has been recited by the PPP on innumerable occasions. Our post-Independence history – all of it – is undergoing study and reassessment, but that is a process best undertaken within the context of historical debate, not by politicians seeking to score cheap, and in this case, disreputable points in an election season. As a former GDF officer Mr Granger can legitimately be questioned on what role he feels the army should fulfil in our present circumstances, and how it compares with what obtained under the PNC and the current PPP, and on the basis of his responses, the public can then come to its own conclusions.
The rest of what President Jagdeo had to say in this connection was more sinister. On Wednesday we reported him as calling on elders to educate young people about the period when the men were killed protecting ballot boxes, and we went on to quote him as saying: “Someone like Granger could succeed because young people do not have a memory of the ’70s and ’80s… in each of your families talk to them.”
In other words, he is campaigning again on history; not on the future, and not even on the present. Never mind that 1973 was almost 40 years ago, and that the PPP/C and not the PNCR has been in office for almost two decades now; we must all operate like amnesiacs for the period from 1992 onwards it seems. What this is about is not policies, programmes or even personalities; it is about keeping the constituency solid within the laager by stirring up the old suspicions, the old stereotyping and the old bitterness. And since Mr Jagdeo recognizes that young people from PPP backgrounds were either not born when the PNC was in government, or were too young to remember the era, then they must be indoctrinated with the received dogma of Freedom House. What they must not be allowed above all else to do is exercise their own judgement.
So much for rationality; so much for unity; so much for democracy. And, it might be added, so much for cross-over voting.
In taking this route the head of state impliedly is dismissing the 40-42% of the population which has consistently voted for the PNCR (the last election excepted). He is also ignoring the fact that there were effectively three PNC administrations – the first in association with the United Force (that party is now joined with the PPP/C, or has Mr Jagdeo forgotten?); the second with Burnham alone; and the last with Hoyte. The PNC, like the PPP after it, went through different stages, which had different characteristics.
The period under President Hoyte, for example, saw an opening up of the society; the jailing of the leader of the House of Israel; the freeing up of the press (SN started up, and restrictions were lifted on the Catholic Standard and the Mirror so they could import newsprint, while the latter was also allowed to import a new press); the GUARD movement was allowed to operate; the courts brought in judgements against the government; the ban on flour, etc, was lifted; the ERP was introduced, and so on. The problem was that this took place under the shadow of the 1985 rigged elections. Nevertheless, this was an era which Mr Jagdeo personally knew something about, since as a young economist he found employment in the State Planning Secretariat, his PPP associations notwithstanding. In other words, while trying to campaign on history, he has distorted even that.
The irony of all of this is that if President Jagdeo is attempting to solidify the traditional PPP vote, with these kinds of tactics he will be solidifying the traditional PNC vote at the same time. If the PNC was not unified before, he may have stirred up enough animosity with his remarks, to achieve that which arguably it could take Mr Granger much longer to do on his own. Whatever the case, if Mr Jagdeo represents the vision of youth, there must be voters in all parties now thinking that age has its virtues.
