History as farce

Spite and malice

One of Karl Marx’s most cited insights was that history often repeats itself: “the first as tragedy, then as farce”. We saw this perfectly illustrated two nights ago in the National Assembly, when the opposition once again succumbed to their vindictiveness, jealousy, and bitchiness towards former President Bharrat Jagdeo. Led by the wizened septuagenarian Carl “Barry” Greenidge, they again girded their loins to truncate Jagdeo’s pension benefits.
Ahhh…how low can they get? Well, with snakes, the answer is “pretty low”! But the opposition are so obsessed with their resentment against Jagdeo, they’ve forgotten their own history. And that history says – even louder than Bobby Brown) – as far as the pension benefits which were already assigned by law to Jagdeo, they “Can’t touch this!!”  Sad thing is Greenidge was one of the chief cooks and bottle washers when Burnham tried to do what he’s attempting now. And Burnham was bitch-slapped by the courts: not once but twice.
Carl knows what’s in store – but like in all tragedies he just can’t help himself. It’s because of his fatal flaw: overweening ambition. What’s the history lesson? Well, back in the day, Burnham tried to prevent workers from getting a wage increase that had already been agreed to. He instituted a wage freeze. A fella named Teemal from GuySuCo took him to court.
The court ruled that the wage agreement (as with any contract) which gave Teemal a salary-increase conferred a right which was ‘property’ and could not be taken away wiithout fair compensation! This is the position with Jagdeo’s pension benefits. GuySuCo appealed the Teemal decision and the Court of Appeal unanimously upheld the decision.
Justice of Appeal Ronald Luckhoo declared: “It would be an alarming situation for an employee to be told by his employers that no matter what they had set out as the terms of employment, they would reduce his salary at any time… This would be contrary to all ethical, moral, and legal concepts, and it is not done in civilised communities.” Justices of Appeal Fung-a-Fat and Massiah were of the same mind.
Burnham, (like Greenidge is attempting today), then used his parliamentary majority to change the law (in that case actually change the Constitution) …but this move was struck down by the courts. The courts emphasised that it was the Constitution that was paramount – not the executive (under Burnham) or the legislature (under Greenidge and company).
This is the farce being repeated.

Let it all hang out
Greenidge was not the only septuagenarian in action (as best as they could, of course) in the National Assembly: his bête noir David Granger roused himself into action also. What is it with these doddlers? Anyhow Granger, as he had threatened in the press, called for a presidential commission to inquire into ‘unlawful’ killings on the East Coast and East Bank of Demerara between 2004 and 2010.
The government promptly nailed his perfidy and took the wind out of his sails when they tabled a host of amendments requesting that the inquiry be in the form of a truth commission that would go back to 1973! We have always believed this is the way to go: let it all hang out and let it all come out in the wash.
Point of the matter is the deadly fruits we reaped in the last decade were from trees planted in the 1970s. And Granger, we know, was in the thick of the plantings.

Good sense
At least good sense prevailed in some areas of the National Assembly.  Supplementary Appropriations for the NDIA and the Ministry of Housing to the tune of Gy$2 billion were approved by the opposition-controlled House. They shouldn’t oppose just because they’re called “opposition”.