In an address to the nation on Friday, President David Granger was not at his most presidential. He declared himself prepared to appoint a Chairman of Gecom as early as tomorrow as long as he had the cooperation of the Leader of the Opposition Bharrat Jagdeo. The essence of his presentation on this particular subject, however, centred around his somewhat singular interpretation of what constituted cooperation.
“Guyanese, it is clear that elections have to be held in the shortest possible time,” he said, “and, therefore, it is crucial to appoint a chairman of the Elections Commission. This could be done as early as Monday if the Opposition is prepared to act in a consensual manner and in good faith.” The CCJ had held the appointment of Justice James Patterson to be constitutionally flawed, and again in its consequential orders on Friday had adverted to the need for the two leaders to communicate with each other “in good faith” to agree on the names of six persons “who fit the stated eligibility requirements and who are not unacceptable to the President.”
The Head of State said that he had met the Opposition Leader “in good faith” on July 4, and subsequent to that representatives of government and opposition had met on three occasions. He then went on to castigate Mr Jagdeo saying that “good faith has not been reciprocated by the Leader of the Opposition,” and that the latter had “rejected the idea of acting in a consensual manner.” His pretext for this judgement was that Mr Jagdeo had “chose[n] to put forward candidates for the post who have been rejected previously.”
The problem is that although the three lists of six originally submitted by the Opposition Leader to the President for consideration contained quite a few distinctly partisan names, there were others whose credentials in the view of most rational people were suitable and whom Mr Granger could reasonably have selected. Some of these appropriate candidates were included among the list of eleven which Mr Jagdeo proposed following the CCJ ruling.
When the representatives of the two sides convened to discuss the Gecom appointment, the opposition was told by the government side that five of the names their leader had submitted had been shortlisted. However, at the end of the meeting it was still unclear to them whether any of those names were not unacceptable to the President. At the next encounter Mr Jagdeo’s list was not discussed, because the government representatives submitted eight names of their own, most of which had close PNCR associations. Perhaps the most bizarre thing about this list was that it included Justice James Patterson, the very person who had been obliged to step down from the Gecom chairmanship in consonance with the CCJ ruling.
According to Mr Jagdeo, of the list of eight names sent to him, the representatives on the coalition side had indicated that not all enjoyed their confidence. The opposition decided to abort the process after the last meeting on Thursday because in the words Mr Anil Nandlall “[it] was not yielding what we thought it would yield, which is a set of names that enjoy [the] acceptability of both sides.” They still had not learnt at that stage which of the shortlisted five names from the list they had submitted were not unacceptable to the President.
Well now the Head of State himself has told them and the entire citizenry too, that none of them was acceptable to the President because he had rejected them before. So what was this pantomime that his representatives were engaged in all about? If in his mind none of them was ‘not unacceptable’, the supposed short-listing of five was nothing more than a ruse. Was it that he was just marking time until the CCJ handed down its orders to see was what possible from the government’s point of view?
As it is Mr Jagdeo’s criticism of the sequence of events would appear to have more substance than that of the President. The public could not understand, he said, “how hard it is to enter into talks when there is no predictability, no principle, no good faith, except a hodgepodge of flimsy excuses.” Nevertheless, following the CCJ’s decision, the Opposition Leader said he would write President Granger to sort out the next step in the process.
It is hard to avoid the conclusion that what President Granger really wants is to have Justice Patterson reappointed, only this time in consonance with the constitution. There would be no point in putting him on a government list as a filler; that would be to insult him after he has already been required to step down, and in any case, there are plenty of other names which could be substituted as fillers. Since Justice Patterson would be unacceptable to the opposition, and the President must surely know this, why would he risk a crisis in order to secure this particular appointee? Elections must be held in the three months from June 18, but even if, for the sake of argument, the opposition agreed to a delay (which it has so far refused) because of an impasse over the chairperson, it would not help the coalition, because this is a caretaker government with all the limitations which that entails.
If it was the President’s intention to portray the Opposition Leader as lacking a consensual approach in this matter, he failed. In fact, he only succeeded in conveying the opposite impression, namely, that it was the Head of State himself who lacked flexibility and the capacity to compromise. This perception was reinforced by the fact that he made reference to the need for an uncontaminated Official List of Electors, which harked back to his insistence on house-to-house registration, despite the fact that informed people had said this was not necessary. He also made his oft repeated comment that Gecom and not the executive was in charge of elections, and had to advise the President. The last date emanating from that particular quarter it might be said, when Justice Patterson was still in the chair, was the improbable one of December 25. Again, President Granger opens himself to the allegation that he is fantasising, and is still seeking to postpone the election.
Finally, his partisan tack was fully revealed in his comment that the country was moving forward and when he exhorted “all our people, of whatever background when the election comes, to back myself, and the coalition to secure a better future for Guyana.” This is surely not appropriate in an address to the nation by a Head of State about a court ruling on a constitutional issue; this kind of statement belongs only on the campaign trail.
