BY HIS record, Bharrat Jagdeo — as Guyana’s President and a Head of Government within CARICOM — presided over the most brutal and corrupt regime the region has seen in the 21st century. His was a record that saw 400-plus persons murdered, many of whose bodies are still to be found; and the Coroner Act is yet to be activated, consistent with the principle that where death occurs under unnatural circumstance, an inquest would be held.

In examining the state of the economy during his stewardship, the narco-militarised economy was allowed to run wild, and drug lords had unfettered access to those in the corridors of government, including association with the president. The country’s business was mismanaged; our natural resources were plundered; race relations turned for the worse; fundamental rights and freedoms were trampled on; the rule of law was treated with contempt, and Transparency International ranked Guyana the most corrupt English-speaking Caribbean country.

The unbelievable task of being responsible for security, fighting crime and protecting the nation, which was a claim made by notorious former fugitive drug lord and present guest of the USA’s penitentiary, Roger Khan, was never challenged or debunked by the Jagdeo government. And his efforts to sanitise a dastardly record by having persons going around the world soliciting honorary doctorates for him have not fooled the public, nor can these ‘doctorates’ erase what he did.

With such a record — that riled the nation up against him — he not only serves as the beacon of what government and elected officials should not do; but, more importantly, this administration should never conduct itself in a manner that he could have dare to think, much less be given the opportunity, to address them and citizens on the Rule of Law.

While in opposition, the parties in government today brought to light and prosecuted several of the transgressions committed by the Jagdeo regime. Today, they should have never placed themselves in a position to be lectured by Jagdeo, especially recognising that they came to office condemning and rejecting the permeated lawlessness of the PPP/C government.

This government needs not forget that condemnation and rejection of the lawlessness — which saw them elected to office — was not merely the work of its leadership, but, more importantly, that of the people who put them there.

Let me seek to make a point very clear: Jagdeo lacking the moral authority to talk about rights, rule of law and good governance, given his stewardship of this country, presents no moral authority by the government to ignore him when it comes to respecting these universally acceptable principles. Having said that, the instances where he referred to SARU and SOCU not operating consistent with the rule of law ought not to be ignored, lest this nation lurches from one lawless regime to the next.

Jagdeo’s 360 degree conversations on the Rule of Law, as Leader of the Opposition, indicates that he is aware of the difference between right and wrong, not by his standard, but by what is accepted internationally. This demonstrates that his party has earned its time-out from government and deserves to be sitting in the opposition. What should be instructive about his behaviour is that the lesson being learnt from it seems to be eluding the Granger/Nagamootoo government.

That this government is allowing a man with such a dastardly record to lecture them about issues and principles that form the bedrock of modern and civilised society is indicative that they are managing in a manner that communicates contentment to be deemed less destructive and anti-people. In fact, what this indicates is that the APNU+AFC administration is content to accept a label that its management of the nation’s affairs is inconsistent with good governance.

This brings me to the issue of the hundreds executed during the Jagdeo regime. A dossier on the majority of these persons was prepared by then Leader of the Opposition and PNCR Leader, Robert Corbin. I recall attending the CARICOM Heads of Government Conference in Antigua when the Opposition delegation sought to meet with the Heads to hand over that dossier and make a presentation. The opportunity was denied.
Let me divert to say that one of the major problems Caribbean people have with CARICOM is the predisposition of the Heads of Government to disregard the views of the political opposition and interest groups who represent a segment of the society, inasmuch as their countries subscribe to international conventions and charters. This lends to the perception that CARICOM in the 21st century, where good governance is premised on rights and the rule of law, is content to operate as a club where sitting governments protect each other.

With Corbin and team having laid the groundwork, it was expected that, since his party forms the bedrock of this administration, the opportunity would have been taken to build on the work embarked on. To do nothing is to give the impression that these lives do not matter, and the work that went into and accompanied the dossier was merely that of political grandstanding.

Finally, it is not lost on me that continued agitation to bring about good governance has brought me new adversaries. I say to those who once sought me out, considered me comrade and ally, and encouraged me to keep fighting: in that your views of me have today changed, or some cross the streets when you see me coming, such acts are infinitesimal to the price of good governance, which this society deserves. Let me put you on notice that good governance is not about persons, but principles; and I shall continue to agitate, even if it makes you uncomfortable.