Former president and PNC leader, David Granger, has given a resounding no to the invitation by President Irfaan Ali to attend a meeting of ex-presidents later this week. The proposed meeting has generated more than a fair bit of commentary and debate at all levels of the society. Not surprisingly, the meeting has been linked to the wider political environment. Indeed, the lead story of last Sunday’s edition of this publication and the weekly column of one of our columnists reflected these sentiments. Further, if the feedback from many supporters of the PNC and the Coalition are anything to go by, it appears that they viewed Mr. Granger’s response as a test of their representatives’ willingness to push back against what they perceive as mean-spirited governance by the current government.
Governance Minister, Gail Teixeira, may have let the cat out of the bag regarding the real intent of the PPP regarding the meeting. In her comments to another section of the media, she is reported to have characterised the intended meeting as an “overture” that is meant to lay the groundwork for future engagements. She was at the time trying to delegitimise Mr. Granger’s insistence on an agenda as a prerequisite for his attendance. So, it is clear that the meeting from the PPP standpoint is one intended to boost the president and his party’s image as an inclusive government. In other words, Mr. Granger’s presence was necessary for something other than a substantive engagement.
For his part, Mr. Granger hit the right note by insisting not just on an agenda, but he put forward his own agenda items. These appropriately include the burning national issues that are of critical importance and concern to his supporters. The PPP is bound to want those issues removed from any talks. But it is for precisely that reason that Granger must insist on their inclusion. Having a meeting with past presidents just as a form of routine engagement does not cut it. The deteriorating political environment demands more. Whether the PPP is prepared to go that route is left to be seen.
But for now, Mr. Granger has done the right thing. This publication believes that there is too much at stake to engage in mere symbolism. The events surrounding the recent election must alert all Guyanese to the fragility of our democratic architecture. The incidence of regime change has compromised our independence and rendered democracy a convenient tool of destabilisation. It is therefore no accident that the PPP finds itself without legitimacy. But it cannot want to accept power in dubious circumstances and then seek to achieve legitimacy by a sleight of hand.
Above and beyond thwarting the PPP’s game plan, Granger has given his constituency something to smile about. The initial feedback suggests that there was no consensus on whether he would attend the meeting. While many preferred him to stay away, they were not sure that he was so inclined. But in the end, he has taken what could be interpreted as a delegate decision—a decision that reflects the thinking of his followers.
This publication supports national dialogue and therefore feel that the leaders must keep talking. However, we are opposed to dialogue that is meant to distract the country from the real reasons for genuine dialogue. If indeed, a council of ex-presidents can open up another point of entry for the realisation of national consensus, then we are prepared to lend our voice. It is something worth exploring but it has to come from a place of genuine concern.
