Jagdeo is attempting to dictate the narrative

Sep 06, 2024 Features / Columnists, Peeping Tom

---

Kaieteur News – At yesterday’s press conference, Vice President Bharrat Jagdeo did what Jagdeo does best. He sought to frame the public discourse in terms most favourable to his government.

With the finesse that only decades of political experience can confer, he began with a familiar refrain—complaining about the so-called “anti-PPP” elements that refuse to measure the success of the current administration by comparing it to the previous APNU+AFC regime. That government, according to Jagdeo, was a festival of corruption, a five-year carnival of ineptitude. And here, as if he were a university professor grading papers, Jagdeo insists that the current PPPC administration’s performance should be evaluated against the low bar set by its predecessor.

But why should Bharrat Jagdeo dictate how the current government is assessed? Who granted him the authority to set the boundaries of public debate? What makes the APNU+AFC’s tenure, which Jagdeo repeatedly castigates as disastrous, a useful standard for comparison? This is the central question that Jagdeo evades as he attempts to straight-jacket the analytical framework within which his government’s performance is scrutinised.

It’s a clever rhetorical sleight of hand, one we’ve seen before. Jagdeo would have us believe that because the APNU+AFC was bad, any improvement—no matter how marginal—should be cause for applause. He places the goalposts so close to the ground that the PPPC could trip over them and still be declared victors. The implicit message is clear: “We’re not as bad as they were, so we must be doing fine.” But this argument collapses under the weight of its own absurdity. If the APNU+AFC administration was, as Jagdeo claims, an unmitigated disaster, then why should we be satisfied with merely surpassing such dismal standards? To compare the present government to the previous one is like grading on a curve in a class where most of the students failed—everyone looks better, but it says nothing about the quality of the work.

By Jagdeo’s logic, if the previous regime drowned in corruption, mismanagement, and incompetence, then the PPPC’s ability to keep its head just above water should be celebrated. This is governance by contrast rather than by excellence, a tactic as old as politics itself. But why should the people of Guyana accept such a meagre proposition? Why should they allow Jagdeo to dictate the terms of debate? The answer is simple: they shouldn’t. Instead, the public should feel free to assess the PPPC government on their own terms, using criteria that matter most to them. Let us take, for example, the glut of resources now available to the government—primarily from the burgeoning oil industry. When Jagdeo compares his administration to the APNU+AFC, does he take into account that his government presides over vastly greater wealth than its predecessor? If not, then why should the public not ask: “What could have been achieved with these resources?” Should they not demand to know whether this unprecedented revenue is being spent in a way that benefits the many rather than the few? Should the government not be judged by how effectively it manages the bonanza that has landed in its lap?

Why limit the discussion to a comparison with the last administration when there are countless other regimes worldwide that could serve as models? Why not evaluate the PPPC by its resourcefulness compared to other oil-producing countries? Nations with similar reserves and populations often manage to harness their oil wealth to build strong, diversified economies with robust institutions and minimal corruption. Why, then, should the people of Guyana be content with comparisons to a failed regime?

And what of corruption? Jagdeo speaks of the APNU+AFC as though their legacy is one of unbridled graft, and perhaps it was. But the fact remains that corruption is a persistent problem under the PPPC as well. The perception of corruption—whether in the awarding of contracts, in government hiring practices, or in the cozy relationships between government officials and certain private sector interests—has not dissipated. If anything, it has deepened. The public should not feel compelled to compare levels of corruption between two regimes but should rather be asking whether their government is as clean as it ought to be or whether it is as accountable as they were promised it would be.

Jagdeo, of course, prefers not to dwell on such matters. He would rather the public forget the PPPC’s promises to renegotiate contracts with oil companies, a promise that remains largely unfulfilled. The government’s current posture toward these contracts is one of cautious acceptance, rather than renegotiation in the people’s interest. Why should citizens not measure the administration’s performance against the promises it made? Why should the government not be held accountable for what it said it would do with the oil contracts and with the Petroleum Commission?

The public must also consider the present government’s policies on their own merits. For instance, what has the PPPC done to address the chronic issues of poverty and inequality? Has it pursued policies that genuinely uplift the working class, or has it focused more on expanding the fortunes of the political and economic elite?

These are the kinds of questions that Jagdeo seeks to avoid by imposing his narrow comparative framework. He does not want the public to assess the government by how well it has reduced poverty or by how much it has reduced inequality. He would much rather they assess it by how much less corrupt or less incompetent it is than the last administration.

But even here, Jagdeo overreaches. By seeking to dictate the terms of analysis, he exposes the fragility of his government’s record. If the PPPC’s performance truly stood on its own merits, there would be no need to constantly invoke the spectre of the APNU+AFC. There would be no need to play the game of relative success. The PPPC could proudly tout its achievements, unburdened by the need for comparison. But the fact that Jagdeo continually returns to this refrain suggests that the government’s accomplishments are not quite as impressive as he would have us believe. In the end, Bharrat Jagdeo’s attempt to impose a framework for assessing his government’s performance is not just an insult to the intelligence of the Guyanese people; it is a tacit admission of his administration’s shortcomings. He would rather be judged against the lowest standards than face the scrutiny of a free and independent evaluation. The people of Guyana should reject this gambit. They should demand more. They should assess their government by the standards that matter most to them—not by the pitiful ones Jagdeo so desperately clings to.

(The views expressed in this article are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the opinions of this newspaper.)

---

• Bharrat Jagdeo, familiar, Peeping Tom, Press Conference, Vice President

---