Dear Editor,
The de facto coalition never seems to be out of the woods where controversy is concerned.
Most of the controversial issues that have plagued the coalition are self-inflicted as a result of political or diplomatic bungling.
We now have the issue with government’s refusal to allow the return of the Carter Center to observe the recount.
Historically, the PNC was always opposed to the presence of the Center in Guyana’s domestic affairs.
Prior to the elections in 1992, Mr Hoyte under pressure, invited the Commonwealth Secretariat to send a team to observe the elections scheduled for 1990. However, when asked what about the United Nations and the Carter Center he blurted out; “Who is Carter? I deal only with governments.” (Cheddi Jagan, ‘Forbidden Freedom’ 1994 edition, pp 102).
Hoyte is on record as having described the Carter Center as “meddlesome” and “troublemakers.”
Hoyte eventually recanted and agreed to a visit by representatives of ‘The Council of Freely Elected Heads of Government’ and the Carter Center led by President Carter in mid-October 1990.
During the visit, Hoyte strenuously objected to any reforms of the electoral system however, when he learnt that President Carter was about to leave for the airport he announced government’s agreement to several demands for electoral reforms, including; 1) A preliminary count of ballots at the place of poll 2) A new voters’ list to be compiled on the basis of house-to-house enumeration 3) Expansion of the Elections Commission and the selection of a new Chairman 4) Access to the state media, including the radio station for all parties.
Elections were postponed from 1990 to October 1992 because of a flawed voters’ list that was rejected by the opposition parties as well as the necessity to pass legislation to facilitate implementation of the agreed reforms.
Following the close of poll and the availability of the Statements of Poll the PNC realized they were losing the elections.
The Elections Commission was attacked violently by a mob associated with the PNC. The Returning Officer for District Four began to stagger his submission of the results from his District to the Commission. He eventually disappeared and for hours could not be found.
A striking resemblance to the March 4 and 5, 2020 events, save that Mingo chose to seek hospitalization and to appear and disappear sporadically thereafter.
Had it not been for President Carter’s and the then US Ambassador, George Fleming Jones’ intervention to prevent the destruction of key equipment and data stored at the Elections Commission’s Office, as well as phone calls to Laurie Lewis, the then Commissioner of Police and Mr. Hoyte, the PNC would have succeeded in retaining power and to prevent a democratically elected government from taking office.
In those elections, of a total of 303,186 votes cast, the PPP/C won 162,058 or 53.8 per cent while the PNC won 128,286 or 42.3 per cent.
The count was completed in two days.
That was 1992. Fast forward to 2018.
Following a telephone conversation between Presidents Granger and Carter in August 2018, and subsequent enquiries from the media about how Mr. Granger viewed President Carter’s role in the matters discussed, Demerara Waves reported Mr. Granger saying, “Carter is a friend, not a broker in Guyana’s politics.” (Dem.Waves 31.8.’18).
Two years later, Mr. Granger has apparently personalized the well known dictum to mean he has no permanent friends only permanent interests.
Mr.Granger’s interest at this time appears to be in sync with Sherwood Lowe’s who wrote; “It (the coalition) must find a way to demonstrate far earlier in the (recounting)process that GECOM’s previous numbers are credible especially in Region 4 in terms of who won this election”. (S/N 5.5.’20)
The dilemma for Messrs Granger and Lowe is how to find ‘a way’ to generate ‘credible numbers’ acceptable to the people of Guyana and the international community.
Denying the Carter Center’s request, foolhardy as it is, is one thing, rebuking the Trump administration by maintaining complete silence is another.
In diplomatic practice, no answer is an answer, and the answer was to be found in the caretaker administration’s refusal to allow the Center’s Representatives to return to Guyana to complete their mission.
If Mr. Granger is holding to the view that he will not be ‘another Desmond Hoyte’ believing that the state of Guyana is not in imminent peril because of its newly found wealth, he may end up paying a heavy price for his action.
Mr. Granger’s response will certainly not cushion nor mollify the impact of Guyana’s hostile responses to the US.
In fact, Mr Granger’s actions closely resembles that of a ‘stumbling horse which nobody would ride for fear of getting his neck broken.’
Moreover, wearing the armour of nationalism would win him no honour, on the contrary, Mr. Granger’s narrow nationalism disguised as protecting Guyana’s sovereignty will only serve to undermine the practice of good faith in diplomacy which is now being severely tested because of the reckless behaviour of his caretaker administration which seems to be totally oblivious to the global realities of power in these times.
Yours faithfully,
Clement J. Rohee
