Mr. Corbin and the PNC have to share blame for whatever is transpiring under the Jagdeo regime

Jul 17, 2009 Letters

---

Dear Editor,
I don’t think your editorial, “Call to arms,” (July 15), properly understood PNCR Leader Mr. Robert Corbin’s opinion that the Honduras situation holds a lesson for Guyana, because I read the article in Kaieteur News containing his remarks and while he drew attention to the similarities between the governments of ousted Honduran President Zelaya and President Bharrat Jagdeo of Guyana in the areas of corruption, cronyism and nepotism, he cautioned that (military) coups are not the right way to go, with the exception that when people’s backs are against the wall they may take action into their own hands.
In my humble opinion, though the word ‘people’ here could be interpreted to mean the masses of ordinary folks, this same word can also be applied in the Honduran case to the ‘people’ who make up the leadership of the Supreme Court, the Honduran Congress, the Electoral Commission and the military. These ‘people’ were actually the first ones the ousted Honduran President turned to for help in pushing for an amendment to constitutional term limits so he could serve beyond his one term. When these same ‘people’ said no, the President took umbrage and applied pressure by firing the head of the military, who was promptly reinstated by the Supreme Court. With their backs against the wall, the ‘people’ with authority pushed back and made the decision to oust the elected President who had less than seven months left in office.
Apart from my letter on this subject published by Kaieteur News, I hope your editorial writer did read Sir Ronald Sander’s almost similar column on the same Honduran crisis and was apprised of the facts: It was not so much a coup as much as it was a move to stop the President from violating the Constitution that says he was entitled to one term!  So your editorial writer erred when s/he wrote, “It is evident that the referendum was the occasion for the army’s war against Zelaya and not the cause,” because the military was not the only player in this matter.
Still, one can readily see why your writer, out of fear, would single out the military for concern in this political matrix, given his or her reference to Guyana’s “history where the army has been called to buttress anti-democratic behaviour by the political classes.” He or she also wrote that, “In 1970, our own Mr. Burnham had instructed the army that it should only be loyal to his government and could decide on its own what its position would be to ‘any other government’. Our army, of course, was (fatally) involved in the 1973 elections. His successor, Mr. Hoyte, spoke about ‘kith and kin’ in the armed forces in a clear plea for the army to take sides in our ethnically divided politics. Mr. Corbin’s justification of the Honduran coup (‘but’ has aptly been called an ‘eraser word’ that wipes out all that preceded it in a sentence) sends an ominous message for our fledgling democracy. We hope that he will unequivocally denounce the coup, as all other countries up to now have done, as being fundamentally antithetical to democracy.”
Like I said, one can see why there is plausible reason for the writer to worry over his or her interpretation of Mr. Corbin’s opinion for fear a military coup in Guyana, but while it can be debated ad naseum whether Guyana has reached the stage like Honduras where Guyana’s President risks getting ousted like his Honduran counterpart, there are two important points I think need to be seriously considered going forward.
First, while I don’t think Mr. Corbin was advocating a military coup, I also don’t think he has the political clout to inspire one, because as leader of the main political opposition in Guyana he failed to effectively confront Guyana’s democratically elected President who has been engaging in authoritarian behaviours even as his government has been rocked by glaring instances of widespread corruption, cronyism and nepotism with no end in sight. Second, Mr. Corbin and the PNC have to share blame for whatever is transpiring in Guyana under the Jagdeo regime, including corruption, cronyism, nepotism and worse, because when the PPP set out in 1999 to amend the 1980 Constitution, the PNC allowed the PPP to retain the clause that protects the President from indictments and lawsuits, and this clause is now being viewed by political observers as the reason for the President’s complete disregard for the law, what is happening in Government and what others think or say about his behaviour in office.
But regardless of the PNC’s complicity and the constitutional clause protecting the President, something has to give in Guyana to stop the President from continuing to behave like an above-the-law dictator.
The Government belongs to all the people of Guyana; not the President, not the PPP and their relatives, and not their friends and associates. Yet the impression we are getting is that the Government is owned by the President and the PPP to be shared among relatives, friends and associates.
I can cite so many instances of what is wrong with Government and in Government and why something needs to be done to change course quickly, but just look back at your own startling news revelations, Mr. Editor, about the misappropriation of hundreds of millions of dollars according to the Auditor-General’s Report for 2006 and 2007 and ask yourself: since this Government shows no inclination to correct these glaring discrepancies, who will hold it ultimately accountable and responsible for instituting corrective measures? Is it the Auditor-General? Is it the Director of Public Prosecutions?
Is it the police? Is it the court? Is it the Attorney-General? Then what is stopping any or all of them? Are they afraid or are they subservient?
Notice I did not ask if the military should hold the Government accountable and responsible, because I don’t think that’s the primary role of the military.
But when, in a supposed democracy, the President is above the law, behaves like he is above the law, has no respect for the roles of institutions of government that serve as checks and balances and has no regard for public opinion about his overall comportment in the nation’s highest office, where else can the people turn for recourse?
The electoral process is no real help because it is manipulated to inspire fear between ethnic groups to benefit contesting political parties and the people then vote along ethnic lines out of fear. For those who disagree with what is happening, it is devastating to have to live through the reality of a Government that actually sees victory at the polls as a mandate to do whatever it wants wherever it wants, as now obtains under the Jagdeo regime.
This is untenable!
Your newspaper is not only about reporting news and making money via advertising space, but it also has a moral responsibility as a member of the so-called Fourth Estate – a guardian of the people’s interest to speak up on behalf of the people when the Government engages in excesses and abuses with no sign of contrition or change on the horizon, and must strive to strike a balance between defending democracy against military coups while exposing evil in Government that is doing just as much damage to democracy as a military coup might do.
Emile Mervin

---

---