How do you know when politicians have expressed a sincere belief or it is the banal regurgitation of political opportunism, a case in which the politician varnishes the real motive with emotional semantics?
Once more, I make reference to then British Prime Minister, Tony Blair.
Blair was the first foreign leader that agreed to contribute troops to the American intervention of Iraq to topple Saddam Hussein. As the British public reacted angrily to subsequent events, Blair gave his reason.
The American President had told the world that Hussein had weapons of mass destruction (WMD) and regime change was the reason Blair agreed to the invasion.
To be noted is that Blair’s explanation came after it was discovered that Iraq did not have WMD. British critics of Blair accused him of just trying to please President Bush and Blair found a convenient alibi in WMD.
I guess we will never know the truth. But as years go by, documents are found that put alternative interpretation to things. Some documents that came out of the Chilot Inquiry into the British role in the military operation revealed that Blair had initially committed the UK to the operation even before the WMD claim by the Americans.
So it is left to every person on Planet Earth to decide for him/herself. My opinion is that Blair wanted to please Bush and he used WMD to cover himself.
We come now to David Granger. Did he really and sincerely believe that when the chairman of the CCJ urged both president and opposition leader to mutually compromise and concede on the talks to find a chairman of GECOM, that it meant that the President can now get around the constitutional stipulation of the opposition leader submitting a list of names and that he, Granger as president can also submit a list to himself?
I guess we will never know. It is left to the citizens of Guyana to give their opinion. My belief is that Granger knew that what the CCJ chairman said could not have allowed him to bypass the Guyana constitution and choose from his own list. For me, it was a game by Granger to stall for time.
The constant refrain of Mr. Granger in his dispute with the AFC over the PM slot was that as President, he has to select the right people for administering the affairs of the nation.
Some situations seem to contradict Mr. Granger but can those occasions constitute evidence to definitely conclude that he uses his “right people” definition to opportunistically get his own way?
Let’s examine three cases. The President insisted that the constitution defines what qualities the GECOM Chairman must possess and the words ‘and any other fir and proper person” also mean that the selectee must have judge-like attributes.
The court ruled against the President but how do we know that Granger was not sincere in believing and still believes the GECOM chairman cannot be someone who lacks judge-like attributes? It is left for us to offer our opinion.
Mine is that I think the insistence on a judge or former judge was Granger’s way of appointing the person he had in mind.
Secondly, the President unilaterally appointed a GECOM chairman. Did he have ulterior motives? He chose an 85-year-old person. Given the rigorous work load of GECOM, was it not too much to ask an 85-year-old to bear?
Those who say yes can point to the hospitalisation of the chairman on two occasions which caused GECOM meetings to be postponed. Does that constitute evidence of Granger’s deception? The answer is almost impossible. You can only give your opinion. Mine is that he had that person in mind all the time.
Thirdly, two categories of appointment can lead one to question Granger’s “right people” defence. Some of the diplomatic appointments raised eyebrows about their suitability and a majority of the appointees were in the age group of mid- sixties, late-sixties and early-seventies.
The other is the head for the department that deals with gas and oil. The vacancy was not advertised. Mr. Granger filled the vacancy on his own. The subsequent queries centered on the relevancy of the person’s qualifications not the soundness of his training.
He had no formal qualifications in the study of oil and gas but in environmental economics.
Were these appointments done with sincerity or was Granger picking people he alone wanted? There is no evidence. One just has to offer their opinions. Mine is that I don’t believe the “right people” explanation. Not for a moment. I don’t believe that Mr. Granger was being fair, patriotic and impartial in those cases outlined above.
Jan 27, 2020By Franklin Wilson Fruta Conquerors ladies added yet another title to their club’s collection when they outlasted Lady Panthers in the final of the GFF-Always Championship 2019 which took place on...
Here is an extract of Mark Benschop’s email to me which I indicated to him I will do a column on; “In conclusion, I... more
Editor’s Note, If your sent letter was not published and you felt its contents were valid and devoid of libel or personal attacks, please contact us by phone or email.
Feel free to send us your comments and/or criticisms.
Contact: 624-6456; 225-8452; 225-8458; 225-8463; 225-8465; 225-8473 or 225-8491.
Or by Email: [email protected] / [email protected]