The dangerous journey of David Granger
I can understand the mistakes of David Granger. Clarissa Rhiel once said to me on the street entrance to the High Court, “Freddie, I don’t know Mr. Granger; I never saw him around the PNC; I never saw him in the trenches.” This was her reaction to Granger becoming leader of the PNC. She was not the only one.
There were countless people who were surprised when Granger became PNC leader. The reason was simple; he, prior to the position, was not, even in minor ways, active in any kind of public politics.
Granger has inherited the presidency of a very troubled country. One of President Desmond Hoyte’s most trusted advisors told me that when he took the job, he didn’t believe that Guyana was such a complex, almost ungovernable country. Jagdeo found that out much too late in his presidential career.
President Granger is feeling his way in the dark. One needs to understand his predicament. He is the new kid on the block. In politics in 2017, the focus should be on Moses Nagamootoo. What has this man learnt from 50 years of politics?
I was coming out of the pet shop on Church Street last month and the Prime Minister stopped his entourage with outriders (reminded me of Sam Hinds) to say hello. He wound down the window, indicated to me he read my column on him that I had published the week before, and reminded me we were friends a long time. Then he said something that irked and I concealed my discomfort with an infinitesimal smile.
He said, “Freddie you don’t call meh.” I replied, “Moses it is for you to call me; you’re the Prime Minister.”
I guess Moses is going to read this column here. It is advising him that he should begin to advise David Granger because Mr. Granger has embarked on a dangerous journey that could drive us deeper in angst and uncertainty thereby further jeopardizing Guyana’s future.
What Moses needs to tell the President about are the pitfalls that he, Moses, witnessed for himself along the way. If the PPP had followed structures and had an established second-in-command, Moses would have become the president of his country.
Moses should tell his president that Guyana and the constitution will be here long after Jagdeo and Granger are gone. You do not tamper with an institution for the narrow, self-serving purpose of the moment. When you are gone, a dragon or monster will inherit that institution that you bent to suit your purpose and he/she will easily tell the nation; ‘I came and met it like this.”
Hate Jagdeo all that you want but do not allow Jagdeo’s enemy to get his/her way with state institutions and the constitution because Jagdeo or his best friend or his beneficiary or benefactor may one day inherit that constitution and reduce it to a toy all because you did that and he/she feels they can do the same.
Mr. Jagdeo is outsmarting Granger and Granger is new to politics to see it. This is where Moses is needed.
Granger’s first mistake was to insist the constitution stipulated that only a judge, former judge or someone with judge-like qualities can become chairman of GECOM. The constitution openly and unambiguously stated in the absence of such, “any other fit and proper person.”
Mr. Granger said that those words pertain to people with judge like qualities. He was wrong but he treaded on dangerous grounds because he was saying that he can interpret the constitution the way he wants to. He cannot do that. He has to follow the exact meaning in the words of the constitution. He backed down. But now he has come again.
He has rejected a second GECOM list from Jagdeo based on what he says the constitution has laid down, but again he is wrong. What is frightening is if Mr. Granger can say this is what the constitution means, then future presidents can abuse power by emulating Mr. Granger. The constitution does not even come close to adumbrating a list of criteria for a citizen to become chairman of GECOM. The criteria Granger had adopted are not in the constitution.
What is in the constitution is the criterion of “fit and proper.” Granger cannot arrogate to himself what “fit and proper” means. What Granger can do and what he should do is to say that he doesn’t think the persons are fit and proper. When asked to explain that, he has a water-tight reason – because I believe they will not be impartial and neutral. He cannot lose if he says that.
