Dear Editor,
In 2007, a much younger former U.S. President Jimmy Carter wrote “Beyond the White House,” about his post-presidency work with The Carter Center, an institution he and his wife help create in 1982. In an excerpt from his memoirs, Carter confessed that “The most personal danger I have felt since leaving the White House was in Guyana in 1992. This small nation on the northern coast of South America was then and still is the most completely divided that I know. … The major political parties are largely separated along these racial lines, as are many of the basic professions.” Carter played a critical role in that election, as he observed a democratically conducted free and fair election and oversaw a smooth transition to the newly elected government. One can argue that the regime that took over after 1992 may have squandered many missed opportunities to bridge the “racial lines” that Carter was concerned about.
Be that as it may, the “danger” Carter referred to was created when a “mob” of angry protesters stormed the Elections Commission and threatened his physical safety inside the building. Carter’s immediate recourse was to direct his secret service agents to call President Bush to instruct President Hoyte to make sure no harm came to the former President. The Wall Street Journal (Oct 16, 1992) reported that “Carter helped curb possible violence”. Had it not been for that call from President Carter to President Hoyte who then instructed the GDF to mobilize and supplement the Police force, Guyana would have experienced the type of post-electoral violence witnessed in 1998 when mobs roamed the streets of Georgetown attacking perceived supporters of the PPP. Some PNC supporters, like Mr. Green, have never forgiven the Carter Center for “interfering” and “curtailing” the PNC’s 28-year rule.
What has changed in 2020? The Carter Center, headed by Jimmy Carter’s grandson, Jason Carter, was accredited to observe the March 2 elections, and is now seeking permission to re-enter Guyana to observe the recount. By all counts, they were denied permission to enter after 3 attempts. In two letters dated on May 15th and addressed to Sarah-Ann Lynch, the US Ambassador to Guyana and to five prominent Senators of the United States, Karen Cummings, the de facto Guyanese Minister of Foreign Affairs, who wrote on behalf President David Granger, explicitly stated that “…it may not be possible for the Carter (Center) and the IRI Advisor to participate in the overseeing of the recount of the votes cast on the 2nd March General and Regional Elections…” She cited concerns over the coronavirus pandemic, and re-affirmed Granger’s confidence in the role of the Caricom observers.
However, institutional memory has now kicked in. Caretaker David Granger, who was 47 years old when Carter observed the 1992 elections, and who encouraged President Hoyte to peacefully hand over power to the opposition, amid objections from PNC hardliners, is making a calculated decision. That decision seems to be based upon the fact that the coalition is now altering its position, and strategy, from claiming victory in the March 2 elections, to a renewed position which seeks to identify electoral and voting irregularities with the hope of negating the elections and denying a win for the opposition. The coalition is more concerned about the US, deemed the “new colonizer”, and the threat of sanctions. Why, then, is the coalition willing to risk it all by challenging the US directly and not the other observers, while at the same renewing its lobbying efforts directed to the American President, Congress and the US Justice Department? The answer may partly lie in the relations the caretaker Granger administration shares with Caricom. Mia Mottley, the Barbadian Prime Minister who chairs Caricom has already taken a stand against US Secretary of State Mike Pompeo by accusing him of “dividing Caricom”. The caretaker Guyana government is hoping to capitalize on this country’s fraternal relationship with its Caribbean neighbours, first by hoping that the Caricom team takes seriously its objections about irregularities during the recount, while banking on the fact that Caricom may not support regime change, particularly under pressure from the Americans.
Granger’s reaction to possible US-imposed personal and political sanctions is emboldened by his determination to follow in the footsteps of his mentor, Forbes Burnham. One of Prime Minister Burnham’s oratorical moments occurred in a speech he delivered at the Parade Ground. The quiet crowd of supporters raised their voices in thunderous excitement when Burnham recited a phrase from “Jumbie Jamboree”, a calypso song credited to Conrad Eugene Mauge: “back to back, belly to belly, ah don’t give a damn, ah done dead ah-ready”. David Granger may have the same determination shown by Burnham, but he has dashed any hope of national unity in this backwater country after March 2 (some may argue since 2015). The actions of Granger and his surrogates clearly demonstrate to the Guyanese people that he “don’t give a damn” about preserving democratic values in a game of power politics where the opposition forces, on their own, may be impotent to force regime change.
Yours faithfully,
Baytoram Ramharack
