The crucial mistake Granger made that we need to see

Oct 31, 2017 Features / Columnists, Freddie Kissoon

I have no objection now or in the future as to the ethnicity of the individual the President chooses to head an important institution once the context is devoid of racial motive. Sadly I think the PPP government from 1957 to 1964, the PNC Government from 1968 to 1985, the PPP administration, including Cheddi Jagan from 1992 to 2015 and the Granger dispensation from 2015 to the present time, have made appointments which were determined by the ethnicity of the persons.
The Hoyte regime was an exception and that was because I think Hoyte went through an inscrutable metamorphosis that was generated by deep Freudian underpinnings. I will have to treat this issue in another column. Suffice it to say he wanted to fashion a new Guyana in which the old bogeymen that dominated Guyana would no longer be there.
I think Hoyte felt that Burnham had ruined his own legacy and maybe, he, Hoyte wanted to leave a legacy. In pursuing that dream, the race card was not on his agenda.
What the unilateral selection of the GECOM chairman did was to let loose in countless numbers the racial bogeymen. It is nasty to accuse Hoyte of choosing a GECOM chairman out of race. If you say so, then you are racist yourself for wanting him to choose an Indian. If you say that you are glad he chooses an African Guyanese, then you could be accused of being racist because why does the ethnicity of the candidate matter? It is his/her non-political character and accompanying integrity that matter.
I am not concerned with the aspect of Mr. Granger’s decision and I am uncertain about its constitutional correctness.
On the ethnic side, David Hinds contends it should have been logical for Jagdeo to put up African candidates because all the other GECOM chairmen except one have been Indians. On the constitutional side many, including the AFC and the WPA, have argued that Granger did not violate the constitution in arriving at a unilateral choice.
I thought I would repeat arguments here that were published in two previous columns looking at the third dimension of the Granger appointment – the political environment.
Mr. Granger could have come out of this controversy (in fact, it would never have been a controversy) if he had the experience and the democratic instincts to comprehend the complex nature of Guyana’s political environment.
First, Mr. Granger had to know that since 1992, the Carter formula provided a semblance of democratic consensus in arriving at the incredible position of GECOM chairman. Both antagonists had an input so zero sum quarrels were avoided. Mr. Granger had to know that zero sum games would have started the minute he moved away from that democratic semblance no matter how anachronistic the Carter formula had become.
Society had agreed that the formula was outdated and had to be replaced by a non-political commission. What Granger did made the commission more open to charges of political injection.
But what happened if Granger found that he was unbearably unhappy with Jagdeo’s three lists because they were subtle con jobs? The unilateral direction could have been made but as they say in philosophy, sometimes form could change into substance. What made Granger’s unilateral pathway so suspicious is that he chose to make the unilateral decision a one-man thing rather than a multi-pronged process.
The strategy was simple. Make your choice outside of Jagdeo’s lists but seek consultation so you avoid the blame of “onemanism.” What the AFC did in its first public reaction exposed the political ineptitude of Granger. The AFC said we were not involved in Granger’s decision of a GECOM chairman and we hope with constitutional reform there would be a multi-pronged (my word) to the selection of the election commission.
The Freudian derivative of that reaction is that the AFC felt Granger should have consulted. He should have done that then make his unilateral decision and in so doing substance would have remained (that is, the unilateral way) but form would have deceptively overshadowed it.
In not reaching out to other stakeholders. Granger’s unilateralism has catapulted Justice Patterson into some strong currents which it is hoped do not drown him. From unilateralism, the critics have moved to Patterson. Patterson is the focus and there have been some inelegant comments on him. But Granger showed his inexperience here too. He kept insisting on a judge. Then he chose one.
He said age is a stumbling block in the elevation of younger public servants. Then, he chooses an 84-year-old gentleman. The concatenation of mistakes of David Granger is worrying.