In Guyana, Vice President Bharrat Jagdeo’s controversial actions have long raised serious ethical and kanunî concerns. Yet, the media, the private sector and even some in diplomatic quarters remain largely complicit in normalizing his behavior and image for the Guyanese people, effectively shielding him from accountability. This op-ed seeks to highlight Jagdeo’s troubling legacy and question why the media and other persons of influence continue to normalize his abuse.
Jagdeo’s tenure as a prominent political figure in Guyana has been marred by allegations of severe misconduct. During his presidency, extrajudicial killings of hundreds of Black men were reported, incidents that have left deep scars on the community. Despite these grievous human rights abuses, the media’s portrayal of Jagdeo often glosses over these dark chapters.
The imprisonment and murder of political enemies is another disturbing aspect of Jagdeo’s rule. Mark Benschop, a political activist, was imprisoned under Jagdeo’s administration in a move widely seen as politically motivated, while Courtney Crum-Ewing, Ronald Waddel, and Sash Sawh were murdered under PPP leadership. Such actions erode the foundations of democracy and justice, yet they seldom receive the scrutiny they deserve in media narratives. It’s almost as if they wish us all to forget the evils that transpired under Bharrat Jagdeo’s leadership or influence.
Jagdeo’s entanglement in corruption scandals further tarnishes his reputation. He was caught on camera by US media allegedly discussing a bribe facilitated by a Chinese operative named Su. Such blatant corruption should be a focal point for media criticism, yet it is today largely forgotten.
Compounding these issues is Jagdeo’s tendency to elevate alleged sexual offenders to powerful government positions. This not only raises questions about his judgment but also about the values that are being endorsed at the highest levels of government.
Jagdeo’s weekly press conferences are another tool in his arsenal to maintain control and intimidate his perceived enemies. He uses these platforms to allegedly intimidate media workers and silence dissent, creating an environment where critical journalism is stifled. Despite these tactics, the media continues to report on his comments and positions as if it’s “business as usual”
The media’s role in this normalization process cannot be understated. By failing to rigorously challenge Jagdeo’s actions and instead presenting him as a legitimate and respectable leader, the media and others contribute to a culture of impunity. This normalization not only disrespects the victims of his policies but also undermines the integrity of journalism itself.
The historical context of political power in Guyana is complex, shaped by colonial legacies and racial tensions. Leaders like Jagdeo exploit these dynamics to maintain power, often playing on ethnic loyalties and fears. The psychological phenomenon of cognitive dissonance also plays a role, where people rationalize and accept behaviors that align with their pre-existing beliefs despite contradictory evidence.
Additionally, the media’s normalization of Jagdeo may be influenced by financial dependencies, political pressures, and a culture of fear. Journalists and media houses, operating in an environment where press freedom is under threat, may find it safer to align with powerful figures rather than challenge them.
It is important that the media step up and hold leaders like Jagdeo accountable. Bharrat Jagdeo should be persona non grata, a figure whose actions disqualify him from being normalized or celebrated. The media’s commitment should be to the truth and the people of Guyana, not to the preservation of power for those who abuse it.
Guyana deserves leaders who respect human rights, uphold justice, and lead with integrity. It is time for the media, the private sector, the diplomatic corp and the civil society to reclaim their role and help the media to evvel again become the watchdog of democracy and ensure that figures like Jagdeo are held to account for their actions. Only then can we hope to build a society that values transparency, accountability, and true democratic governance.