Latest update April 24th, 2024 12:59 AM
May 10, 2020 Eye on Guyana with Lincoln Lewis, Features / Columnists
Over the last few days, though the environment is somewhat calm, there is still an undercurrent being whipped up by external interference. What is happening to Guyana’s election shares similarity with the 2016 United States (US) presidential election. I am not talking about the nation proceeding with a National Recount that would lay to rest the impasse. I speak to the tsunami of misinformation and rampant bullyism that have overtaken truth, reason, respect for our laws and sovereignty.
Whereas the US had to deal with one of its most contentious elections and interference by Russia seeking to influence its outcome, Guyana has had to contend with the formidable US-based Mercury Public Affairs firm hired by the PPP/C in April 2019 to boost its election campaign and according to the party’s General Secretary, the firm has been “effective in getting the party’s message to the leaders of the US Government” (KN 17th April and 15th September, 2019).
It’s to Guyana’s peril to underestimate the far-reaching influence of Mercury. On 16th July 2018, US media CBS News reported that Mercury “sought to recruit the ambassadors of France, Germany and several other countries to demonstrate international support for severing Russian oligarch Oleg Deripaska’s control of Rusal, the aluminum manufacturing giant sanctioned by Washington…” To do this the firm “drafted messages for…envoys to send to senior U.S. government officials that expressed support for a plan to eliminate Deripaska’s majority stake….”
Mercury was paid by Guyana’s Opposition to get a job done and will seek to deliver to its client not necessarily mindful of negative consequences. Whereas election in Guyana is generally considered a boisterous affair, particularly between the major political parties and their supporters, the majority of whom, on each side, is from a specific ethnic group never before has it been this bitterly fought. This fight is witnessing collaborative forces and several moving parts delivering a single message. It matters not whether the message is truthful or not, once it can be sold to an accepting audience that’s what matters.
Never before in independent Guyana a member of the diplomatic community has demonstrated the audacity to dismiss the right of a citizen to legal recourse by referring to the case as “frivolous.” What makes this most audacious is the ‘offending’ citizen was not the only one exercising this right. The Opposition filed injunctions and in one case the court said it was wasting their time, but this was not considered “frivolous” by the diplomat.
Never before have we seen such public contempt for the Code of Conduct for International Election Observers. There has been flagrant disregard for the conduct of ‘Maintain[ing]Strict Political Impartiality at All Times.’ Said condition expressly states, “Observers must maintain strict political impartiality at all times…They must not express or exhibit any bias or preference in relation to national authorities, political parties, candidates, …or in relation to any contentious issues in the election process…”
Said code further ruled participants “must not conduct any activity that could be reasonably perceived as favouring or providing partisan gain for any political competitor in the host country…” Yet some have openly taken a side dating back to the No-Confidence Motion (NCM) and the rulings of the High Court and Caribbean Court of Justice (CCJ), Guyana’s final arbiter, raising eyebrows especially given the unexpected quarters they are coming from.
Never before has this nation seen such disregard for “good diplomacy”, flagrant fraternising by the diplomatic community with person/s not only of questionable character but openly supported the Opposition. In our volatile environment everything is suspect, could be misconstrued.
On the 18th June 2019, the CCJ ruled the NCM was validly passed and on 12th July issued Consequential Orders providing a framework how we’ll proceed in the post NCM environment until new election is held. Whereas the CCJ never ruled a date by which the election should be held it was widely propagated by the Opposition and accepted by some section of the diplomatic community that the CCJ set a date for the election (i.e. by 18th September). The High Court was approached to rule in favour of said date but acting Chief Justice Roxane George-Wiltshire on 14th August ruled, “This court cannot order that elections be held by a certain date.”
Instructively, in keeping with Mercury’s modus operandi the Western diplomatic community came out in consort against the courts’ rulings, our laws, our judiciary. A joint statement by the US, United Kingdom and European Union on 19th September 2019 stated that “by surpassing September 18, the Government is currently in breach of the Constitution following its failure to adhere to the decisions of the Caribbean Court of Justice (CCJ) on 18th June and its subsequent orders.” Clearly, it was not the government in breach of the orders but the diplomatic community who sought to assert dominance influence.
Refer to: http://www.ccj.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/07/2019-CCJ-14-AJ.pdf
I digress to recount that this unfortunate and erroneous perspective still holds sway. As recent as last week, Canadian High Commissioner Lilian Chaterjee, a guest on Enrico Woolford’s programme ‘Context’ made mention that elections should have been held by 18th September. The continuous audaciousness risk asserting an authority that was not vested in the community, impugning the erstwhile reputation of our courts and the esteemed Justices who presided over the cases. From all appearance, this is no accident but resembles a disciplined and organised approach in enlisting and having persons speak to the same message. Frankly, the hallmark of Mercury.
Not succeeding to get the government to move to the proposed election date, another application was made to the High Court to overturn another aspect of the CCJ’s ruling. This time, to have Cabinet resign as per Article 106(6) with no regard for Article 106 (7) of the Constitution.
On 16th October, the acting CJ ruled it “evident that the effect of the NCM was the immediate resignation of Cabinet, but the Court [CCJ] clearly stated that notwithstanding this, the tenure in office of the Cabinet, including the President, as well as Government as a whole, ‘is on a different footing’– is that of a caretaker mode consequent to the passage of the said NCM.” The Opposition appears to continue to enjoy the support of the diplomatic community for government/cabinet to resign and hold election outside the framework of the CCJ rulings.
In this 21st century, this sovereign nation that sought over the last five years to move away from becoming a flourishing narco economy, a narco war zone and a state engulfed in unprecedented crime and corruption, to operate at a level where we can gain respect and move forward, suddenly found itself on the eve of its oil revenue subjected to blatant disrespect for its laws and sovereignty by RUSAL first, and now this. This does not augur well for Guyana. It leaves a bitter taste in the mouths of many of us to see our cultural context not being taken into consideration. Guyana is no longer a colony and whilst we welcome help and want to partner with the international community, we want our rights and laws to be respected.
(The views expressed in this article are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the opinions of this newspaper.)
LISTEN HOW JAGDEO WILL MAKE ALL GUYANESE RICH!!!
Apr 24, 2024
Round 2 GFF Women’s League Division One Kaieteur Sports – The Guyana Police Force FC on Saturday last demolished Pakuri Jaguars FC with a 17 – 0 goal blitz at the Guyana Football...Kaieteur News – Just recently, the PPC determined that it does not have the authority to vitiate a contract which was... more
By Sir Ronald Sanders Waterfalls Magazine – On April 10, the Permanent Council of the Organization of American States... more
Freedom of speech is our core value at Kaieteur News. If the letter/e-mail you sent was not published, and you believe that its contents were not libellous, let us know, 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]