Articles by Janet Jagan
by Janet Jagan
I read with utter amazement a report published in the Stabroek News of August 20, 2005 of the Guyana Fiduciary Oversight Project issued by the World Bank.
I could only come to the conclusion that someone who prepared the report needs counselling or the Stabroek News incorrectly reported on the matter.
Firstly, the report noted that “Members of Parliament were elected only if they could secure the support of the leadership as the leadership controls the party list and each candidate’s place on the list.” It also noted that “the influences of the Party leadership is extremely rigid.”
To begin with, we have to examine the historical aspects of proportional representation. Before 1964, Guyana had the constituency system, first past the post. But to remove the People’s Progressive Party from office, which it had won in free elections three times in 1953, 1957 and 1961, the British, pushed by the USA, after investing tons of money to destabilize the country, changed the electoral system to proportional representation, and then manipulated Messrs Burnham and D’Aguiar into a coalition, since the PPP won the majority of votes, but not over 50%.
Stabroek News has been publishing previously secret documents about Guyana. In its issue of September 18, 2005, it published documents of the Johnson era and noted this: “After Burnham was elected Premier in 1964, the US government again through the CIA, continued to provide substantial funds to both Burnham and D’Aguiar and their parties.”
Now that free and fair elections were re-established in 1992, those who still nurse antagonisms to the PPP, and, particularly, the PPP in office, will do and say almost anything to again change the system which was imposed on Guyana’s voters. In other words, the PPP has beat the system calculated to defeat it, and having won the elections of 1992, 1997 and 2001, those who hate the PPP are thinking of a new system to remove the PPP from office.
Next, to understand how the list system works, yes, the fairly and democratically elected leadership of the PPP selects the names for this list. The PPP just had its 28th Congress and at that function, duly elected delegates from the Party’s many Groups, at democratic elections, elected their leadership, the Central Committee, which is the highest authority in the party in between Congresses, which are held every three years.
So, who else would select the names of the members on the list, from which the Members of Parliament are chosen? Maybe those who can find every gripe and criticism of the PPP would prefer if the media makes the choice?
The report in the Stabroek News of the Guyana Fiduciary Oversight Report say this: “the impact of the party whip was therefore overwhelming, and any MP especially Government backbench MPs wishing to depart from the “Party line” - is in danger of losing their seat in Parliament.” This preposterous statement makes no sense in relation to reality. That is what prompted me to suggest that whosoever prepared the report needs counselling or has not done his homework.
Take the case of Khemraj Ramjattan who was on the PPP list and made an MP. Subsequently he broke with the PPP and was expelled, so he is no longer associated with the PPP which selected him for the National Assembly. He has or is forming another political party, but hangs on to his seat in Parliament. So the suggestion by the report that the party whip can oust him from Parliament is all nonsense. He refuses to give up his seat and there is no way of getting him out of Parliament unless he chooses to resign.
A similar situation occurred when Mr da Silva who was on the PPP’s 1992 list and became an MP, then changed his allegiance, but held on to his seat.
These two gentlemen have claimed that they won their seats and have their own constituency or electoral support. It will be interesting to see if either will be back in Parliament in 2006!
The report also, erroneously, paints the PPP and the PNC under the same tar brush of racism. There is a great distinction between the two major parties on the issue of race. Many, like those who reported, as above, do not have a clue about the reality of Guyana. All they have to do is examine the statistics of how the nation’s wealth is distributed in all aspects of government, from housing, health, education, infrastructure, etc., to see that an even hand has been used throughout. Job distribution, scholarships, educational opportunities up to University, etc., confirm the total lack of race preference by the present ruling party.
There are those who peep at us from outside, who know little about what goes on in Guyana, who may rely on a very hostile media that is given full range to say what it wants. They try not to arouse the hostility of the PNC by using the sorely tried practice of “plague on both houses.” It’s much easier, and more diplomatic, to charge both parties with the sins of one.
But then, what is new?
September 2005
© 2005 Janet Jagan
By Janet Jagan
Just a few days off is the 12th Anniversary of the PPP/Civic’s monumental triumph over the Burnham/Hoyte 28 years of rigged elections and the denial of the most elementary democratic practices.
The restoration of democracy and the end of fraudulent elections that held Guyana and its citizens in agony, fear and chains of many kinds was spearheaded by Guyana’s outstanding leader Cheddi Jagan who had just the qualities needed at that particular historical moment.
We can only wonder what our position today might have been if he had not been at the helm of the Party he built and cherished, the People’s Progressive Party. He had the brains and the determination to rid the county of the dictatorship that ruled mercilessly, corruptly and which had destroyed basic democratic practices. He was the Leader most needed at that historical time and he did what he was destined to do – lead the nation out of the morass of pain, indignity and chaos. The Party he and so many other stalwarts had built and nourished was there to provide a strong following for a strong leadership.
Few could have forgotten those heady days after the October 5, 1992 elections, when people could once again speak out without first turning their heads to see if anyone would report on them to the Kabaka’s successor or his minions. Press freedom was declared, the media was at last free after 28 years of muzzling; people could go and come as they pleased; Parliament was now an open forum, no longer held in obedience to the powers who held office as a result of electoral rigging. Businesses could operate without forced payments to the robbers at Sophia and the ordinary man and woman were free. I remember one man saying to me a few days after October 5th: "I can breathe freely again without fear."
It’s now 12 years after that great day of liberation, seven years after the death of Cheddi Jagan, who led us on the path of freedom. In the five years he lived and served as our President and Leader, he molded the thrust of the nation to a better life, with a great deal of the resources of Guyana diverted to the betterment of the condition of life of the working people and a reduction of the terrible poverty, a legacy of the Burnham-Hoyte years of repression. All he started has continued. A few, once close to him, even decry his good work and others try to misuse the freedom of the media, to mock the progress made.
I am often astounded by the manner in which supposedly intelligent people say we have no democracy and others, pushing to get what they perceive to be their share of the government process, the nonsensical concept of "shared government." They fail to point out any successful attempt of that anywhere in the world. So far, it has been a failure in Ireland where it was once touted as the way forward. Yes, all countries have their problems – their divisions – India has had its religious and language difficulties, the same for Indonesia and Malaysia; USA has a problem with its minorities and so do Ecuador and Bolivia and on and on we can go. But sharing government is no solution.
One real solution is to accept the norms of democracy and governance which means that periodic and fair elections is the way to having the people of any nation choose its government. It works everywhere, why not in Guyana? A party that once ruled by rigged elections seem incapable of playing by the rules – and wants the goalpost changed every election to make it easier for them to win. They’ve been playing this game too long and it’s time now for society to stop encouraging their childish antics and to tell them the facts of life as people all over the world know. Perhaps the 28 years when the PNC suppressed democracy has been responsible for their lack of belief in democratic practices.
We have much to be proud of as we celebrate October 5th and we must not allow the negative elements in our society to suggest, as they do all the time, that we have not made positive gains. All we have to do is open our eyes and see that Guyanese today are better off in many, many ways than before, that democracy is in full bloom, that poverty is shrinking and that, most of all, people are free!
October 2004
© 2004 Janet Jagan
