President David Granger’s revelation in a radio interview last Monday that he supported Chief Election Officer Keith Lowenfield’s report to Gecom, and that he thought the declaration of results should be based on it, set alarm bells ringing throughout the country. This was the first time that he personally had made publicly known his position, as opposed to his spokesmen conveying his views second-hand, although his actions had admittedly left little doubt about the direction of his thoughts. But after Monday, all uncertainty and benefit of doubt were banished.
What was alarming about the statement from the point of view of the long-suffering public, was what it implied. Here was the de facto President saying that he did not recognise a result based on the recount, and by extension, therefore, did not intend to relinquish power. Now that position has a certain logic to it in terms of what follows. It is true that the legal segment of the saga has not played itself out yet, but whether the CCJ determines it has jurisdiction or not, and no matter what it rules should it decide that it does, at some point Gecom will have to make a formal declaration of results.
Gecom Chair Claudette Singh had instructed the CEO to compile his report on the basis of the recount results, which he failed to do, creating instead a document which disenfranchised over 115,000 voters, and made APNU+AFC the winner. According to the recount the PPP/C won the March 2 election. When Justice Singh eventually declares a result one cannot believe it would be on the basis of the Lowenfield report, although if she did in fact do a 180o turn where this was concerned, everyone would assume, rightly or wrongly, that she had felt intimidated. Far more likely is that her declaration will reflect the recount, since in her earlier letter to the CEO she had cited the law and the Constitution in support of this approach, and the law and the Constitution do not suddenly amend themselves.
Of course, if a false result is declared then the illegal government would have effected a kind of bloodless coup. It would face the full weight of the international sanctions it has been warned about, most likely without − as it has also been told by an independent commentator − enjoying the benefit of money from oil. Apart from being a disaster for the economy, it would cause great suffering among the ordinary population, particularly among the de facto President’s own constituency, which tends to be urban based, while that of the opposition dominates the agricultural areas.
In this day and age, how does the coalition believe that this would be acceptable to the electors? It might be added that even in these circumstances it would probably sooner or later have to employ force to maintain itself and keep order, in the same way it would if it had instituted a military-style coup.
Assuming that in due course the true result is declared, how is it, people will be asking, that the de facto President intends to stay in power? Not by the law route as said above, although he still might find some legal crevice by which he could delay things further. In the end, however, when all other avenues have been exhausted we are looking at a coup d’êtat. There is simply no other alternative. No one wants to believe that a Guyanese politician, particularly one as educated as Mr Granger, would place the country in such jeopardy and its citizens in such physical danger. But his behaviour over the last three months has undermined whatever vestiges of confidence people had resided in him. They might not have believed initially he would have gone to the lengths he has to avoid the inevitable, but certainly by now they will have recognised he is no stranger to deceit and manipulation in the political arena. That means they will look on his latest comment that he will abide by the Gecom Chair’s declaration with a very jaundiced eye.
This being Guyana without a history of military dictatorships, one would expect some kind of preliminaries before a coup occurs. And it would not be acknowledged by the perpetrators as a coup at all. As such, and as a fig leaf to our supposedly democratic framework, a state of emergency would be declared. The coronavirus lurks in the background as one possibility, although it hasn’t as yet, at least, reached the kind of levels which would justify that. This is not to say it might not still do so.
Then there is the Maduro tactic of some imaginary plot. One hopes that the scurrilous little story about the opposition masquerading as a ‘news’ item at the end of last month, was not testing the waters for just such a modus operandi. Whatever is selected the whole point would be to promote the ‘emergency’ as necessary to ensure the safety of the Republic and its inhabitants.
The agency which would effect such a coup would not be the Guyana Police Force, although they would be drafted into operations at some point in an adjunct capacity, it would be the Guyana Defence Force. Its primary function, although not its only one, has traditionally related to our territorial integrity and the monitoring of our borders. In response to a question last week, newly inaugurated acting Chief of Staff, Brigadier Godfrey Bess said that the army would continue to support the democratically-elected government of the day as they had been trained to do. “Our relationship with the civil authorities,” he was quoted as saying, “always is subordinate and we take instructions, legal instructions.” Inevitably he was asked whether the GDF would support an undemocratically elected government. Not surprisingly, perhaps, he side-stepped the question, replying, “The Guyana Defence Force is a professional organisation and we will stick to the Constitution of Guyana.”
While members of the military at an individual level have mostly been supporters of the PNC in its various incarnations through the years, who knows whether at the present time there would be any appetite in the organisation for backing a coup and going out onto the street and shooting citizens, because coups are never without bloodshed never mind what they are called. Or would there be a split, however minor, in the body in a situation such as this? No one outside the GDF and perhaps at the highest level of the political hierarchy really knows.
The problem with coups is that no matter what they are called, they are brutal. States of emergency are intended to be of short duration, but if such a state is really masking a coup, then one is talking of something which is intended to have durability. And inevitably, however low key such a turn of events might start out, in order for those in power to maintain control more and more force – and violence – has to be employed as time goes on and as they meet more resistance. Not just opposition members, but anyone with an independent voice would be liable to arrest, the free media would be subject to censorship, if not closed down, independent organisations would be suspect and citizens generally would live in fear. Surely this is not the kind of independence an earlier generation fought the colonialists for?
In addition to the effects of international sanctions mentioned above, it should be added that Guyana would become an outcast in the councils of nations; it would be suspended from Caricom and would lose the headquarters of that organisation, and it would also be suspended from the Commonwealth and come under the scrutiny of the OAS. Our reputation would never have been so low.
Within the country the de facto President would have destroyed his party – as it is, it may never recover – done incalculable damage to race relations, and they are already in the worst state they have been for a long time, and also inflicted enormous injury on his favourite institution, the GDF, which would pay a heavy price for engaging in political adventurism.
There are those of various ideologies and persuasions who believe that history is driven by forces of one kind or another, and not by individuals. It is hard to apply that to Guyana, where individuals and their decisions at critical junctures have so obviously affected the evolution of our narrative. And so it is today, where the decision of one man can determine our future for good or ill. David Arthur Granger holds history in his hands. For the sake of his party, his country and all our tomorrows, let him choose wisely.
