IT is becoming increasingly evident that Bharrat Jagdeo is systematically laying the foundation of a sinister agenda to destabilise Guyana. Specifically, the leader of the opposition is setting the stage for political and social instability on March 21, 90 days after the no-confidence vote was debated, voted on, and passed by the National Assembly.

Patriotic citizens should recognise Mr. Jagdeo’s actions for what they are and call him out. Moreover, Guyanese must reject Jagdeo’s not-very-subtle attempts to foster a national atmosphere of fear, distrust, and division, because, if Mr. Jagdeo succeeds, it is the ordinary man, woman, and child who will suffer — Mr. Jagdeo will be securely ensconced in his Pradoville mansion.

In the recent past, Bharrat Jagdeo has become increasingly vociferous in his attempts to sow fear and discord. He has alluded to a looming “constitutional crisis,” while, at the same time, encouraging Guyanese to “chase out” ministers of government from various communities. This confluence of ideas cannot be accidental; they are intended to reinforce each other in the pursuit of Mr. Jagdeo’s agenda of confusion.

First, Mr. Jagdeo’s “constitutional crisis.” Mr Jagdeo is being untruthful about this, and he knows it. There is no constitutional crisis, except the one being artificially projected by the opposition leader.

A constitutional crisis is defined as, “A problem or conflict in the function of a government that the political constitution or other fundamental governing law is perceived to be unable to resolve. At this juncture, such a situation does not exist; Guyana’s constitution makes provisions for all eventualities following a no-confidence vote. Of immediate concern is the Guyana Elections Commission (GECOM)readiness to hold elections. GECOM has said that the list has to be sanitised, thus, elections cannot be held within 90 days.

This in itself does not produce a crisis as Article 106 (7) makes provision for the period to be extended beyond 90 days. To give effect to the article, though, the parliamentary opposition must be cooperative. If Mr. Jagdeo’s PPP refuses to responsibly cooperate, any constitutional issues — crises or otherwise — would have been caused by the PPP. In other words, any crisis would have been artificially concocted by Mr. Jagdeo’s party.

Further, Mr. Jagdeo’s repeated calls for President Granger to hold elections has been demonstrated to be disingenuous. His Excellency has iterated time and again that it is not within his remit to unilaterally– or otherwise– order GECOM to deliver elections by any particular date. Instead, the president has said that he has to be advised by GECOM regarding the agency’s readiness; an agency with which he is not legally permitted to interfere.

Interestingly, even the former attorney general under the PPP, Anil Nandlall, agrees with President Granger’s position and interpretation of the law.

Second, Mr. Jagdeo’s calls for his supporters to “chase out” government officials from various communities is, at least, reckless and irresponsible. If PPP supporters heed Jagdeo’s calls, one can easily see that such situations can quickly deteriorate into conditions in which persons may be harmed. Is it not unbelievable that the leader of the opposition of a sovereign nation would be so exceedingly cavalier in his utterances? And, implied by Mr. Jagdeo’s calls for “chase out” is the notion that some Guyanese — including government officials — are not entitled to enter certain communities or villages in Guyana. The appeal by Mr. Jagdeo to visceral, divisive forces cannot be missed.

Mr. Jagdeo is obviously setting up a situation of the artificial creation of a political crisis, while at the same time, he is actively encouraging confrontation and possibly clashes. It is unfortunate that a former president and current leader of the opposition would stoop to such levels, and engage in such uncivilised behaviour in a quest for personal power. Of course, similar scenarios have been observed before in territories such as Iraq, Venezuela, Germany, Syria and North Korea, among others. There are numerous historical and current examples of one man being so power-hungry, that he would destroy a whole country to gain power. None of those situations has ever ended well.