Latest update April 25th, 2024 12:59 AM
Mar 05, 2023 Features / Columnists, Peeping Tom
Kaieteur News – Bharrat Jagdeo is advised to cease with his cuss-out style of debating, check his facts and concentrate more on the excesses of the present government rather than keep focusing on what took place under the APNU+AFC government.
His facts are wrong when he claims that civil society groupings were not as vocal under the APNU+AFC as they are today. The fact that the PPPC is now facing a barrage of criticisms has more to do with its style of governance, including its secrecy and inability to be more inclusive.
One of the reasons why the multi-stakeholder process, promoted under the Extractive Industries Transparency Initiative (EITI) will never succeed under the PPPC government is because such a participatory process is an anathema to the PPPC.
The PPPC does not understand what it means to seek consensus. It is either its way or the highway. The PPPC does not understand the art of compromise. It is either you are with me or against me.
How then can a multi-stakeholder process work under the PPPC? It can never work. It is either you take their position or you leave it.
Under Jagdeo’s Presidency, a National Stakeholders Forum was created. That body was only conveniently and selectively convened. When the PPPC government wanted widespread condemnation of the Lusignan and Bartica massacres of 2008, it arranged a forum. When pressed about when the Forum would become a permanent feature of governance, Jagdeo was reported by this newspaper as saying that he never promised to institutionalize such a Forum.
Inclusionary governance is not in the PPPC’s vocabulary. Just look at the criticism which was aimed recently at proposals from the Private Sector Commission (PSC) and the Federation of Independent Trade Unions of Guyana (FITUG). Is that indicative of inclusionary governance?
When you have Vice President going to India without any technocrats in tow to advise him, what does that say about the style of governance being practiced in Guyana? And what has really changed from 2014?
The Vice President has a point about the double standards of certain civil society groupings. But the PPPC invites such double standards by its failure to engage and respect civil society groupings, outside of its friends and cronies in the private sector.
Transparency Institute Guyana Inc. (TIG) has come in for some criticism from the Vice President. The Guyana Chronicle quoted Jagdeo as saying that his party had catalogued a list of 75 scandals under the APNU+AFC but that TIGI was mum on these.
The Vice President also questioned a report by TIGI which he said stated that it was the APNU+AFC which had stopped the parking meter contract. Jagdeo needs to get his facts right.
The APNU+AFC did stop the contract, notwithstanding the fact that it was a PNCR-dominated Council that approved the contract. And he seems to forget that a certain AFC councilor riding a Big Ben was part of the protests against the parking meters, protest to which his party gave moral support.
TIGI cannot be accused of not speaking out against scandals during the term of the APNU+AFC. The organization condemned and questioned the actions of the APNU+AFC on a number of counts.
Did TIGI not condemn the signing of a Memorandum of Understanding between the Government and Guyana and Fedders Lloyd? And did it not call for the contract to be retendered?
Did TIGI not express concern over the APNU+AFC handling of a controversy which erupted over the procurement of pre-paid meters by the Guyana Power and Light? Did TIGI not describe as corruption the practice of employing and rewarding supporters and donors?
Did TIGI not describe as vulgar and reeking of cronyism a Pension Bill which was brought to the National Assembly and which would allow for the payment of a pension to a former PNC Prime Minister?
Did the TIGI not publicly denounce proposed amendments to the Integrity Act? And did it not describe as “weak” the Code of Conduct which was developed by the APNU+AFC?
Did TIGI not accuse the APNU+AFC of deception in relation to the signing bonus? Is Jagdeo aware that TIGI in a statement said, “The government has failed to handle matters related to oil with transparency and it appears to have deliberately engaged in deception in relation to the matter of a signature bonus.”
Or is it what rattles the PPPC is the reminder that it was the TIGI which had expressed concern that Exxon had been awarded a 26,888 sq. km block under a single licence? Or is it that the PPPC is afraid that the public will recall that the same TIGI had called for decisive action against APNU+AFC Ministers who were in breach of the government’s code of conduct? The PPPC has no such Code of Conduct.
In relation to the 2020 General and Regional Elections, TIGI did issue a statement which included the following: “The circumstances surrounding the declaration of the results for region 4 have created an appearance of collusion between GECOM and the incumbent, APNU-AFC, in so far as the results which were not transparently verified but declared for Region 4 tip the national election in favour of the incumbent.”
(The views expressed in this article are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the opinions and beliefs of this newspaper and its affiliates.)
Jagdeo giving Exxon 102 cent to collect 2 cent.
Apr 25, 2024
By Rawle Toney Kaieteur Sports – The French Diplomatic Office in Guyana, in collaboration with the Guyana Olympic Association and UNICEF, hosted an exhibition on Tuesday evening at the...Kaieteur News – Dr. Bharrat Jagdeo, the General Secretary of the People’s Progressive Party, persists in offering... 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]