Dear Editor,
The criticism started because of an incident that took place at State House on December 19, 1997 when Janet Jagan threw a Court Order over her shoulder. The Order was aimed at blocking her from being sworn in to be the sixth President of Guyana.
To her opponents her action was nightmarish and indigestible. As far as they were concerned, she was required to fulfill her constitutional duty with aplomb and utmost decorum befitting of a conventional highfalutin figurehead.
The legal and sanctimonious nobility at that time, sought to remind her threateningly of the convention: obey the rule of law or be sanctioned by the court of an opposition dominated public opinion pretending to be both judge and jury.
Mrs. Jagan stood her ground, after all, it was her first and probably only shot she would have at the presidency after years of struggle winning general and specific freedoms and equality for women including, women’s right to vote, income equality and fighting for free and fair elections, all representing acts of defiance on her part.
But the critics paid no attention; they did not see a feisty nor combative woman with many years of struggle, imprisonment and sacrifice under her belt, they saw only defiance not the human factor. All they saw was the need to depose ‘this white American Jew’ who according to the satraps, ‘had no place at the highest level of state and government in Guyana’.
In her defiance on that day, she had pushed the malicious herd aside and out of the way. Her defiance was reported as an assault on the rule of law. Some even felt she should be denied what the electorate had decided and that she should be re-assigned to Freedom House on Robb Street.
Having failed in their efforts to restrain, denigrate and humiliate her during her presidency, Janet Jagan’s defiance gave the political opposition nightmares not to mention their ‘weeping and gnashing of teeth.’
‘But her defiance went beyond the holding of office, she asserted the right to reside at her home at Bel Air and not State House when, citizen Jagan she declared; “I have the right to decide where must be my place of residence and that right will not be taken from me.”
It was only days after settling in at her office at New Garden Street, now Shiv Chandarpal Drive that she sought to telegraph to the critics and cynics that she was neither a danger to herself nor to others as she went about her daily Presidential duties; not with the airs and graces or hubris as some did in the past but with marked self-assurance, humility and a deep commitment to fulfill the promises made in of her party’s 1997 election manifesto.
On January 18, 1998 in response to a question concerning her action put by GTV journalist Martin Goolsaran this is how she put it; “… I regret what took place and I wish to apologise for my action. At the same time, I would like to take the opportunity to show the other side of the coin so that people may understand the state of my mind and what had occurred. I also wish to mention very categorically, that it had nothing at all to do with disrespect for our laws or or our constitution.”
Frequently perceived as defiant. Janet Jagan never hesitated to stand her ground and to state her opinion, even if it made people uncomfortable. In fact, it was only thin-skinned people who did not see the positive nature of her spirit of defiance.
In fact, it was only when she stood her ground-on questions of principle and her beliefs that she was labelled rebellious and defiant, a misinterpretation that reinforced the false impression that such persons are disagreeable and unrealistic players, unfit to hold office.
During her tenure in office, Mrs. Jagan refused to be ‘imprisoned’ by the trappings of presidential office. As President, she was able to force changes in the status quo obtaining at the time. In her own style, she influenced cabinet decisions, government’s parliamentary agenda as well as her administration’s foreign policy.
Mrs. Jagan shunned extravagance, lavish state banquets and dinners. She dispensed with contract-seeking shysters and ‘Greeks bearing gifts’ and while not being a presidential introvert nor sectarian with the Guyanese people as a whole, she never neglected to ground with members and supporters of her party and government. Moreover, she proved capable of expressing her change-making views on culture, ideology and politics.
Janet Jagan had good reason to be angry to be confronted with a court order, orchestrated by those in authority to block her from being sworn in as President of Guyana.
Rebelliousness and defiance can be a raw deal – they can be a strength in some areas and a liability in others. But if ‘JJ’ wasn’t defiant and rebellious during her years in opposition she would not have made to be the first woman President of our country.
RIP JJ!