The deceptions of Cheddi Jagan & Tony Blair - Freddie Kissoon column
A man who sells potions in a traveling show
Unless a history-maker confessed in his/her memoirs before they died or confesses while they are still alive, we will never know if they genuinely believed in the things they told us or were just selling us deceptions for their own particular reasons. Cheddi Jagan and Tony Blair come to mind.
Let’s deal with Blair first. He took British troops into war because he felt at the time that Saddam Hussein’s Iraq had weapons of mass destruction. When no such items were found he was unapologetic because he felt he still would have wanted Hussein overthrown because he was an evil man. Time and time again, Blair has said this was the passion in his heart as he looked at the decision to go to war
Is Blair telling the truth? The scholar’s role is to look for evidence to contradict what leaders tell their nation. If the incontrovertible facts are not found, then mystery is the result. Mystery yes, because how do we know that the truth was told? In Blair’s case, I don’t believe one, not one single word of his repertoire of explanation as to why he sent his troops into Iraq.
There may be evidence, if the investigator digs deeper, that Blair chose to accede to a request from Mr. Bush because he felt that Mr. Bush deserved his help or that through Mr. Bush, he Blair, could exert some leverage on world affairs, the way an American President does. The story of what he felt in his heart may just be deceptions to deflect his servility to Bush while he was British PM. Of course, Blair may be honest for all we know about why he acted the way he did in Iraq.
On several occasions, Jagan, told me while he was President of Guyana, that he achieved a historic breakthrough in Guyanese politics by having a coalition government with the middle sectors and the business community through their participation in government under the rubric of the Civic Component. Sometimes when Jagan spoke, a tiny spark of sincerity shone in his eyes. Was that intestinal glow a natural deception? Did Jagan really believe that after 1992, he had presided over a power-sharing administration?
Jagan died and in a collection of speeches edited by David Dabydeen, there is nothing in that book to prove that Dr. Jagan moved away from that conceptualization that he spoke to me about.
It is up to the analyst to believe or disbelieve Jagan. In order to prove that Jagan was selling bubble baths that soon dissolve into thin air we have to get the proof. For me, as in the situation with Blair, I hold the opinion that from 1992 until now there has never been a power-sharing government in Guyana. What Dr. Jagan did was to bring in faces in his regime that would support the PPP Government. That is what the Civic Component did. In fact, the Civic Component was always a farce, a charade, a masquerade. It had no substance. It never had a leader. It never had an existence.
There may be some evidence to contradict Jagan but his admirers would say that it is not proof enough. Jagan, after 1992, personally rebuffed working with many top Guyanese political actors because he knew they would not have been supine members of his cabinet
We come to the third person, President Jagdeo. Does he honestly embrace the beliefs he offers his audience when he speaks to them or is the President in a permanent propaganda war. A caveat is in order. There may be a situation in which the leader is labouring under illusions but consciously does not know that. In such circumstances, a charge of selling watered-down potions may not be the right accusation to make. On every occasion when President Jagdeo speaks to a large audience, he invokes the ghost of a busy opposition conspiring to do evil things to Guyana. The list is long. We can shorten it by citing just a few examples before we describe his statement to a pre-Phagwah show last week
In 2006, he sermonized Berbicians, attending the death anniversary of Dr. Jagan, with the theory that if the opposition wins the national election, the very people that stole the AK47s from the army will be given these guns freely. One needs to remind the reader that three times in the last three weeks, the President denounced sections of the media of making inciting statements.
In her Mirror column two weeks ago, Mrs. Janet Jagan alluded to extremist outpourings in the media. As we are on this topic, readers should be advised to recall that PM Hinds advanced the thesis that Guyana may not be ready for the use of private radio stations because look at what radio did in Rwanda. Even a school boy would know that this perception of the PM is directed at opposition forces
Again, but in 2008, Berbicians were serenaded with the opinion of Mr. Jagdeo that there are people who claim that they can stop the orgy of violence but only if they are allowed to become part of a power-sharing arrangement. Really, it is stupid of anyone to deny that when he made that statement he didn’t mean the opposition. I need to direct readers to bear in mind Mr. Hinds’ statement about Rwanda, as I enumerate these examples from the President.
Last week at a pre-Phagwah function, as broadcast by channel 65 news, the President reminded his listeners that you have to bring the opposition to a meeting before you can get them to denounce criminal violence. He repeated that assertion as he went on in his presentation
These are just three examples of President Jagdeo’s insistence that the opposition is somewhat connected to the pathology of violence. First, they will give away guns to people who have an inclination to steal them from the army. Secondly, the opposition may have control over the nihilistic gunmen and will curtail their perpetuation of sadistic violence only if they are brought into government. Thirdly, the opposition refuses to denounce criminal violence. I could offer more times in which this line by President Jagdeo is kept up. But the occasions named here should suffice.
On the observation made at the pre-Phagwah event, the facts are not in favour of the President. When he took over as leader of the PNC after President Hoyte died, Mr. Corbin made public statements against criminals and visited their victims. All opposition parties denounced the Lusignan Holocaust and the Bartica massacre.
We return to the main question in this essay. Does the President genuinely see an opposition conspiracy and he keeps it in his mind? Or is he deliberately pandering to his supporters? One hopes it is not the latter. That is dangerous politics. Very dangerous at this time.
