Did President Jagdeo consult his people yesterday?

Sep 06, 2008 Features / Columnists, Freddie Kissoon

---

President Jagdeo openly told the Caribbean region and his country that Guyana would not sign the Economic Partnership Agreement (EPA) until he consults his people. President Jagdeo used the word “people” twice. Did the President consult his people yesterday? Can you call what took place at the International Convention Centre yesterday, a dialogue between the President and Guyanese stakeholders?
First, the programme carried the title, “National Consultation on Cariforum-EC Economic Partnership Agreement.” But the arrangement took the shape of a symposium with half the presenters being persons who do not live in Guyana.
Only two panelists live in this country, the President and Professor Clive Thomas. Surely, if you are going to solicit the opinion, judgement and analysis of the Guyanese stakeholders, then they should have been the main presenters. The world would then see how our stakeholders feel about the EPA. The second half of the session called “Plenary Discussions” did allow for the venting of opinions. In this context, one can say that sections of the Guyanese society were given the opportunity to express their judgement on the EPA. The PNC did, the private sector did. Fair enough. But this country has many stakeholders, some of whom are important, like the TUC, GAP-ROAR, Red Thread, the Guyana Human Rights Association and the Roman Catholic Church, among others. At the time of writing, I do not know if they have publicly endorsed President Jagdeo’s EPA position, though some of their representatives were in the audience and spoke in favour of not signing the EPA
Let us for the sake of argument accept that the essential constituencies in this country supported President Jagdeo at the Convention Centre yesterday, a crucial question to be asked is this; did these interest groups consult their individual memberships on the question of the national consultation on the EPA? If yes, then they have let down their membership badly.
Let me start with the Alliance For Change. I spoke to its chairman, Khemraj Ramjattan. He told me that after the failure of the President to follow through on the promises made after the Lusignasn mini-Holocaust and the Bartica massacre, he would like to think that the AFC would ask President Jagdeo to include several of the items that were agreed on when there was a consensus in the Guyanese society after the two violent incidents.
Ramjattan looked at the Human Rights Commission as a pressing demand. The major point that Ramjattan enunciated was that the AFC should not be satisfied with just discussing a one-item agenda.
We move to the PNC. This party has given its endorsement to President Jagdeo’s intention about the EPA. Confusion now sets in, and the present PNC leadership is surely not far from being totally confused. Mr. Corbin told the people of this country that his party boycotted Carifesta because governance in Guyana takes the form of a dictatorship. Mr. Corbin listed a plethora of complaints against the violation of democracy by the Guyana Government and given this state of affairs, the PNC could not have participated in Carifesta.
This same party now accepts an invitation by President Jagdeo to denounce the EPA, and agrees to support a restructuring of the EPA. Here, a priceless opportunity to get President Jagdeo to do the positive things the PNC wants him to do and which the PNC laments, thus its Carifesta boycott, has been sadly missed. What kind of politics is the PNC playing? One of the great rules of politics is quid pro quo. Even an incompetent leader like Cheddi Jagan understood this. In 1976, when he gave Burnham “Critical Support” he demanded PPP members on all state boards.
Then there is Professor Clive Thomas. He has given birth to a theory he named the “criminalized state in Guyana.” It is similar to my paradigm of “elected dictatorship.” According to Professor Thomas, the state in Guyana is in alliance with dubious elements that make for a demoralization of politics in Guyana that can only be described as frightening. Professor Thomas writes about the criminalized state quite often in his Stabroek News column. He never fails to highlight the atrophied state that presently controls Guyana. Yet he accepted the President’s invitation like the PNC, spoke at the “consultation” yesterday, and like the PNC, accepted the demands of change to the EPA as adumbrated by the President, without asking for consultation on good governance in this country
So can these stakeholders tell us what they are going to do about dictatorship in Guyana? Should we continue to have one radio station? Do we deserve a Freedom of Information Act? Does tertiary education exist in Guyana? Shouldn’t there be a national consultation on that? What a country!

---

---