DR. Henry Jeffrey, in his ‘Future Notes’ column, has arrogated to himself the role of an “authority” on almost every issue under the sun.Having served in leadership positions, under both the PNC and the PPP/C administrations, he seemingly feels positioned to pontificate on governance issues on a comparative basis.
But as an academic, his only concern should be to analyze situations objectively and scientifically. His “Future Notes” seem not to conform to the basic tenets of rigorous analysis. His most recent analysis of the situation as it relates to the Anti-Money Laundering and Financing of Terrorism Act is indicative of such flaws, if not biased analysis.
Take, for example, the position he took in his most recent column (Wednesday March 26, 2014) captioned, “The politics of money laundering: Who will blink first?”, in which he accused the PPP/C of not being serious in terms of passing the necessary amendments to the said Bill, with particular reference to the period when the PPP/C had enjoyed a majority of the seats in Parliament.
What Jeffrey did not mention in his column is that there is a fundamental and qualitative difference between what obtained under the PPP/C and the former PNC administrations in relation to governance and in matters of law and jurisprudence.
The first has to do with the fact that under the PNC, Parliament was not a representative, and hence truly deliberative body in which the true preferences of the population were reflected and codified into the Laws of Guyana. Parliament, for all practical purposes, under the PNC was nothing short of a façade in which ‘laws’ were imposed on the people without any meaningful checks and balances.
In those days, the committee system was not institutionalised as is the case today. There were no select committees to try and iron out differences prior to the full sitting of Parliament, as obtains today. It was ‘PNC way or the highway’ insofar as the opposition parties were concerned, even though the PNC was a de facto minority government.
The second point to note is that the PPP/C never had any intention whatsoever to use its majority status to railroad legislation, even though, as Jeffrey himself posited, it could have easily done so, given its majoritarian status in previous Parliaments.
The anti-moneylaundering Legislation is much too important, with far-reaching consequences, for the country and people to play politics with, and for it to be hastily treated and rushed through Parliament. Maybe, in hindsight, it was perhaps the better thing to do, given the intransigence and the anti-national stance now being taken by the combined political opposition, where they are now prepared to sacrifice the national good on the altar of narrow partisan interests.
Sadly, while the opposition parties are fiddling, nacro-traffickers and money launderers are having, as it were, a field day; and the blame is being put on the PPP/C government by Jeffrey and his cronies.
Jeffrey went on to draw parallels between the PNC and the PPP by making the spurious point that both parties, at varying periods, entered into ‘deals’ in order to promote their respective partisan political agendas. He gave as an example the support given to the Burnham regime in the mids-1970s on the issue of nationalisation of the sugar industry by the PPP to get the regime to put mechanisms in place to allow for union recognition of GAWU.
There are two fundamental points that needed clarification and further elaboration. The first, as Jeffrey ought to know as a former ideologue of the PNC, is that the PPP has consistently taken a principled position when it comes to the issue of nationalisation of the commanding heights of the economy. As such, there was no need for any political horse-trading on this matter, insofar as the PPP was concerned.
The second point has to do with the fact that GAWU, at the time of nationalisation, was the largest sugar union, with overwhelming support from field and factory workers. The issue of union recognition was a non-issue, because it was bound to happen with the passage of time, and therefore was never the subject of any horse-trading.
And, for the record, the PPP had never advocated nor supported the deliberate burning of sugar canes to hurt the economy during the Burnham regime, which is being peddled by the PNC, even though it was in support of legitimate industrial action by sugar workers in an effort to address grievances.
The PPP/C administration has nothing to gain from the non-passage of the Anti-Moneylaundering and Financing of Terrorism Legislation. To suggest otherwise, as Jeffrey sought to do in his column, is not only intellectually deficient, but wholly incorrect.
NARINDRA PERSAUD