I refer to Michael Tannassee’s thoughtful and well intended letter titled, ‘Condem-nations should be accompanied by solutions’ (SN, December 29), and offer the following in response.
To begin with I am not from Berbice; nor, to the best of my knowledge, did I ever have kin from those parts. My better half hails from that enchanted county, so there are in-laws. Also, if guilty of proselytizing, then it is only for an ideal that is, perhaps, now forever lost. I trust that none of this is disappointing. I now move to the important stuff.
There can only be agreement with the ten issues pinpointed; I am sure there is room for another ten more from any source, and with which I might not have any objection. Having so stipulated, it must be said that any recommendations for solutions – and solution per se – must begin and continue with inclusion. Only genuine, sustained efforts at partnership (inclusion) will suffice in an attempt to start to address our massive ethnic, social, economic, and other issues. I repeat: “in an attempt to start to address our… issues.” Meaning the very initial efforts at attempt might fail before any meaningful start, which, if the latter were realized, could suffer the same ignominy in short order. In Guyana, any solutions begin, live, end, and die with inclusion.
In a society where, at any time in our last half century, two out of five citizens are embittered and angry, and with a third equivocating and open to courtship, I believe that solutions can only flow from inclusion.
Quite rightly, this could be attacked by many in a couple of ways. First, that those parties most responsible for the problems, cannot, and must not, be part of the solution. Others will remind us that our political Scylla and Charybdis have each had lengthy terms, that both are too far gone, and that both went too far in their pursuit and retention of power at any cost. I agree, but I pause to ask: in the current environment, what are our options?
For a moment the AFC was seen as a fresh breath, and a new and potentially sparkling dynamic. All too quickly, it self-flagellated internally, and, in time, stuck to a determinedly armchair approach instead of a proliferating grassroots outreach. I had identified publicly with the AFC on its arrival; since then I have been content to observe.
So, it is back to the beginning and the ‘same ole, same ole’ of the devil and the deep sea, and the wash of inclusion that must immerse each. It was what I had voiced during the tumult that led to Castries and Herdmanston. This remains unchanged by time and circumstances.
I will admit here and now that inclusion will be far from a panacea. However, it would open a never before entered door, to house an uneasy alliance, and marginalize – even if only temporarily – the hardliners and militants in both camps. I think that ensuing goodwill will be slow in developing, but that with time it will grow to the point where trust can flow into a stream from a trickle. The same trust that is so lacking in all our endeavours and discourses; and so deleterious to any possible solutions. Trust seriously inhibiting solutions whether Mr Tannassee’s ten issues and more; whether narcotics and crime; whether law enforcement and corruption; whether ethnic tension and political ancestry; and whether civic concerns and plain old fashioned neighbourliness.
Given the sorrowfully sick state of affairs (no satire here), I see no other way working. It is why I stand ready to support any move with those who seek to practise inclusion as a solution and a way of life in Guyana. I am not afraid to commit both the time and energy. I am, also, not afraid to fail in the search for solutions through inclusion.
Yours faithfully,
GHK Lall
