How could Jagdeo justify retaining the powers of the executive presidency?

Dear Editor,
I am writing this letter on Thursday, September 15, that is, on the eve of Appreciation Day for the contribution of President Jagdeo to the development of Guyana.

In my view, the President did reasonably well in managing the economy of Guyana; he clearly devoted a lot of time and energy to devise programmes to improve the infrastructure of the country; solved the maritime or part of the maritime boundary problem with Suriname, which the British, as colonial masters, failed to address; and importantly did not become a maximum leader of his party. A number of PPP stalwarts crossed swords with him, even publicly, and there is no evidence of a witch-hunt resulting.

There have, however, been negatives, including Roger Khan’s role in ‘assisting the police,‘ depending on how this matter is viewed.

I would however pose one question. The President sought to justify holding on to the powers of the executive presidency, created for the late LFS Burnham and resulting from a blatantly rigged referendum in which the insulting ‘no‘ symbol on the ballot paper was the mouse. The vast majority of Guyanese of all races boycotted the referendum, a proud moment in the political history of this country.

The question is, how could anyone justify holding on to the powers of executive president while at the same time castigating the PNC for rigging elections in general and the referendum of 1978 in particular to foist on the people that of which they did not approve?

Yours faithfully,
McLennon Moore

Around the Web