Jagdeo can salvage his sagging legacy by restoring public confidence in govt.

Apr 26, 2009 Letters

---

Dear Editor,
President Bharrat Jagdeo, in response to a recent query in Trinidad about him seeking a possible third term as President, said he was puzzled why the issue kept coming up even though he previously said he wasn’t interested and so he surmised that the ongoing speculation might stem from some people who are fearful he just might seek a third term.
To tamp down their fears, he has now pointed to a system his government has put in place – namely the amended Guyana Constitution – limiting any President to two terms in office.
If this system is the only reason he wants us to go by to believe him, then he needs to be reminded that in the world of politics a promise is a cold comfort to a fool, for if there is one trademark by which most politicians of all stripes are known, it is their penchant for making promises, which most of them never really keep most of the time. Worse, if a politician has a track record of broken promises, it doesn’t help his/her credibility to make promises.

In Russia, Vladimir Putin circumnavigated his way around constitutional term limits in order to ensure he went from number one to number two-in-command so he can still pull the political strings in Moscow.
In Venezuela, Hugo Chavez was successful in his second determined try in a 12-month period to get citizens to vote in a referendum that would now see him serve beyond his constitutional two terms. And in New York City, Mayor Michael Bloomberg aborted his original support for term limits and is now actively seeking a third term. So President Jagdeo needs to know that we, the people, know anything can happen between now and 2011, including him having a change of heart in the name of some plausible or even contrived reason.

But the problem is not so much that some are merely fearful (actually more apprehensive than deathly afraid) of him seeking a third term, perhaps via a simple parliamentary amendment of the Constitution, but what would a term accomplish for Guyana that two terms and a couple of years didn’t?
Despite our country’s potential to do a lot better on several fronts, and despite being given the chance to ‘make it happen big time’ for Guyana in the last ten years, the President simply failed to deliver. He is not a big or long-term thinker as there is no one who seems to know what his structured five or ten-year plan looks like.
So, for that reason I have to admit I am among the lot he described as fearing he just might seek a third term; but more so now that the last living founding leader of the PPP just passed away and the party may be looking to pick a new leader from among the locals who make up its hierarchy. If ever there is a reason or incentive for him to reconsider, it is this opening that was just created.

To his credit, the President did attempt to put the third term issue to rest by stating some time last year that after 2011 he may be looking for a job in the international community, but since then his political stock in the PPP rose significantly given he was among the top five vote getters at the party’s last Congress (and, correct me if I am wrong, but I think he also sits on the Executive Committee which picks the party’s presidential candidate). And his political stock rose even though there is a prevailing perception that he is running the government from his own script rather than from a script prepared by the party.
Besides that opening that could benefit him politically, this is a man who has tasted political power and actually used it to behave like an autocrat over the past ten years, so it would take a great deal of ego-deflating humility for him to walk away from the opportunity to fully take the reins of the PPP and, in the footsteps of Forbes Burnham, Desmond Hoyte and Cheddi Jagan, become the leader of the ruling party while simultaneously leading the government/state.

So, that international job he previously expressed an interest in, even if as a paid environmental lobbyist or advocate, has to have a great lot more going for him than this current job, which job actually made it possible for him in the first place to raise his profile as a globe-trotting environmental advocate.
No, I am not making a case for him to be considered for a third term, because to me, despite his government taking loans and grants from international financial institutions and benefiting in a backhanded sense from a revved up informal economy, his overall performance as President still says he is not even a duly qualified or experienced candidate in his current area of responsibility.
And despite becoming a self-made advocate for the environment, Guyana was never facing imminent danger to its forests so the only experience he has in this area is winging it all over the place hyping Guyana as a candidate for a huge financial windfall to avoid deforestation.

Bottom line: under President Jagdeo, and despite its potential, Guyana still is not an economic leader in the Caribbean, and because it also ranks high on the list of corrupted Third World nations, any money received to avoid deforestation would necessitate regulatory supervision by donors. So unless major world environmentalists decide to gamble by hiring him as their paid spokesman/advocate after 2011, we will have to wait and see if he doesn’t hire himself and remain in Guyana.
In the meantime, if he ever keeps his promise to call it quits after 2011 he should give some serious thought to redeeming his sagging legacy.

While his push for Guyana to be rewarded financially for preservation of its rain forest may be his trump card in salvaging his slumping legacy, it is the prevailing perception among Guyanese that Guyana can do better that tamps down high expectations of him leaving a legacy worthy of emulation.
I hold no hope for a major recovery in two years, but I’d be pleasantly surprised. What I think he should at least spend the remainder of his tenure doing is working to restore public confidence in government and a sense of independence to all its institutions, starting with Parliament, the Judiciary, the Police, the office of the Director of Public Prosecutions, GECOM, the Auditor-General’s office, the Local Government system, and work to finally establish an office of Ombudsman or Public Advocate.
Make it harder for his successor to come into power and behave like an uncaring autocrat who runs political interference in these institutions for petty and vindictive reasons.

Take the Judiciary, as a current example. It has suddenly come under the microscope of the executive branch, working via the legislative branch, to fire judges who fail to rule in a timely manner on appeals and civil cases. Most of us waited a very long time for practical judicial reforms to make the judiciary more efficient in dispensing justice, and while some of us might applaud the executive branch’s latest move to engage the legislative branch to prod judges to do their job or face the axe, others among us are wondering what brought about this rash and career-threatening reaction from the executive branch?
Is it that the executive branch actually finally cares about expediting justice or is it flexing its political authority over the judicial branch by manipulating its legislative majority in response to the recent brouhaha involving the Registrar of the Supreme Court who was at loggerheads with the Chancellor of the Judiciary over the Registrar’s extended leave of absence?

The Chancellor did appear angry over the Registrar’s extended leave of absence, which he said he did not approve, but then the Registrar apparently publicly dissed him when she said it was approved by Office of the President. While this terse exchange could have ended in a possible showdown between the Office of the President and the Chancellor, the public wants to know to whom the Registrar really reports on a day-to-day basis, and the public now has a right to enquire if the Chancellor, who is serving in an acting capacity, can be among those judges targeted for firing?

If all this noise about firing judges really stems from this Registrar issue, it would just go to show the executive branch is making a mockery of the justice system by flexing its political muscle and this doesn’t bode well for the President’s legacy or the public’s confidence in his government to allow institutions to function independently. It is obvious that political interference is partly responsible for the judiciary being the way it is, and so part of the antidote is to reduce or eliminate that interference so the judiciary can function effectively and efficiently again!
Emile Mervin

---

---