Jagdeo lecture was thought provoking and well presented

Dear Editor,

“We Black people...” These words were uttered by someone whom countless Guyanese would be shocked that these words came from his mouth. But yes, Guyana’s former president and current Leader of the Opposition Bharrat Jagdeo on Friday evening in delivering the 18th annual Eric Williams Memorial Lecture in Miami did say “we Black people” and “we are Black people” as he spoke of the people of the Caribbean. He also identified one of the reasons for US presidential candidate Donald Trump’s popularity, the failure of the status quo (meaning mainstream politicians and political parties in the US) to address a number of stereotypes and misconceptions one of which is that Black people are lazy and criminal and “just want to live off welfare. This is just not true” Jagdeo told his audience of Caribbean Americans and others including a Bahamian delegation that included Foreign Minister Fred Mitchell.

In an earlier letter to the press I had indicated the resentment of many Guyanese to the invitation extended to Jagdeo to speak at this prestigious lecture series and to my sharing information on Facebook about the event. I am in no way associated with the organizing of the event but was accused of trying to legitimize Jagdeo who many feel is racist and corrupt. I also said in that letter that I am in no position to legitimize or dismiss anyone.

Well, on Friday night Jagdeo sought to, and was successful in further legitimizing himself. While I did not agree with some of his arguments, I would be dishonest if I said anything other than the fact that his lecture was informative, thought-provoking and well presented. He displayed a familiarity with the issues regarding global trade and development, Caribbean integration or lack thereof, and US domestic politics. He offered suggestions/solutions to

A pessimist sees the difficulty in every opportunity; an optimist sees the opportunity in every difficulty - Sir Winston Churchill

down the system. That youth in and of itself was not the panacea for all our ills was one lesson the citizenry learnt from Mr Bharrat Jagdeo’s sojourn in the Office of the President during the term of the last administration.

Whatever was promised to specific groups – the diaspora, young people or whatever – the citizenry in general was led to expect that after the election they could expect to see the evolution of a meritocratic state. The more cynical among them might have wondered where these people were coming from, given our human resource crisis, unless the diaspora were to be tapped. In fact, at the time of the unconscionable increases in ministerial salaries, one of the things the public was told was that it was getting quality ministers. With some exceptions, the electorate has had ample time to be disabused of that idea, if it ever believed it in the first place, which is doubtful.

But even at other levels in the public bureaucracy meritocracy is not the first description which comes to mind. Appointments often appear to reflect loyalty and/or old-time political associations or former – and occasionally, current ‒ military connections. In fact, the President and his Minister of State Joseph Harmon appear more comfortable with those who have been in the army than with anyone else. It seems almost superfluous to observe that the full range of talents which a modern society will require do not reside exclusively in the military, and many of them may not be found there at all.

Having said that, many of the civilian appointments are hardly suitable either. Most recently, there is the case of Chief Executive Officer Richard Van-West Charles of GWI, whose conduct is under investigation by the board of the utility. In the first instance, his post was not advertised, although at first glance, given his qualifications and experience he did not appear to be an altogether unsuitable candidate. It has not been revealed how Mr Van West-Charles was appointed, but the electorate would presumably not be too far off the mark in concluding it had a political hue given his association with the Burnham era.

It has to be acknowledged that as mentioned earlier, there is a critical shortage of skills here which needs to be made good at some level before the country can ever hope to start on the road to progress. However, the APNU+AFC government came into office it would very much appear, without a single thought in their combined heads as to how this deficit was to be made good. Their overriding concern was some measure of political balance, and who among them would secure which portfolio. The President – or his Minister of State ‒ inserted his military preferences into the mix, and then there were the internal loyalty factors to be considered by the PNC on the one hand, and the AFC on the other.

In the ranks of the diaspora, it is true, there will be any number of persons with skills which are sorely needed here. The problem lies in how to source them and how to insert them into a system which is hedged around with rules about hiring, without creating a slew of ‘advisors’ outside the official bureaucracy, as this government has already done. The diaspora may not appreciate that consultants are less needed here than qualified professionals who can do a serious job of work.

The administration, of course, has no authoritative survey to hand indicating what its human resource needs are in every sector and where the worst gaps are, let alone a policy for where and how skills can be accessed. For the moment, therefore, integrating any significant number of Guyanese in the diaspora into the system on a fulltime arrangement would be challenging, although it might be possible to accommodate a number, particularly retirees, on a short-term basis.

It might be added that any member of the diaspora can apply for a post here, and in terms of public positions, those are supposed to be advertised. If diasporans want to come, therefore, they could always apply in the same way as everyone else, although outside that framework there are the special concessions for moving here such as the previous government offered. Of course, the salaries here are not encouraging, and one imagines that it is only those expatriates who are financially secure who would consider them, and they would be mostly too old to qualify for our public service.

As a start, however, as yesterday’s letter made clear, there should be some agency here which deals with diaspora affairs, and which should keep in contact with its members. It should also have a register of those who might be prepared to contribute their skills on a long or short-term basis, and which could supply information on how the system works here, etc.

As for those senior government officials who put in an appearance now and then at major diaspora centres like New York, they would be well advised to make contact with their fellow Guyanese. Diasporas can also function as important pressure groups in the lands of their adoption.

some of the challenges he identified as facing the Caricom region. His presentation was well received and some attendees later told me, “he was statesmanlike.”

Notwithstanding all the ranting and raving on Facebook about Jagdeo’s invitation not one Guyanese who feels so strongly about his alleged wrongdoings during his tenure as president turned up to ask any questions of him.

No one has even written a letter to the Eric Williams Foundation requesting an explanation of the invitation extended to Mr Jagdeo.

I asked two questions of Mr Jagdeo and one had to do with Guyana. My question had to do with the Venezuela claim which I make sure I raise in every public forum.

His answer was in keeping with the Guyana position on the claim and he said it is difficult to predict how a Trump presidency would impact the controversy.

At the cocktail reception which followed I quite audibly greeted Mr Jagdeo as “my Black brother” and then proceeded quietly to ask of him to juxtapose his “we Black people” against his “beating drum in the morning” remarks just prior to the last election and those reportedly made during a recent speech in New York. He explained that on both occasions sections of his remarks were excluded so as to remove the context and meaning of what he said.

He told me he had explained this at press conferences in Guyana.

Like him or hate him Jagdeo will continue to be a key factor in the political life of Guyana for the foreseeable future.

Yours faithfully, Wesley Kirton