Dear Editor,
Usually I am exhilarated by my Friday sundowners – in anticipation of a mentally risk-free weekend. But this evening is unusual. I find myself in a reflective, indeed doleful mood, after only one downer.
I have come to realise that this sobering reflection has resulted from the discouraging, almost depressing range of letters addressed to SN’s editor, today Friday, 13 July, 2012. Irrelevant of superstition the readings contributed to a bleak, if not black Friday.
Across the pages one could only discern expressions differently articulated (and some not so articulate) of a substantive state of denial in the Guyanese psyche. The most rudimentary, which dealt with a perception of the incapacity of our law enforcement agency, did not warrant reading to the end, located on another page.
In ascending order was the superficial glare of examination of a legal light focused on the latter’s version of conflicted interest.
Then much higher up was a most evocative analysis of the case for all Guyanese to deny racism. Please read it over again. The only reason it did not make first place in contributing to my depression, was that its competitor was an equally well crafted exposition decrying the self-entanglement of historian with politician.
The evaluation was hardly flattering to the latter, as it raised issues of historical perspectives, analytical capability, and strength of conviction, amongst others.
For, however one is determined to obfuscate a real issue, perceptibly divisive as it may be, by denying that movements, developments, transformation in societies, for better or for worse, are inspired by leadership (good, evil or ineffectual), is a fundamental rejection of accepted fact.
In the Guyana case it is at least disrespectful to deny the historic role of two political giants – Jagan/Burnham – in whatever order. However they may have influenced the construct of our society, their respective impacts cannot be denied; nor worse, be dissipated into the disaggregation of anonymous groups of followers. In common parlance ‘Jack must be given his jacket.’ To compromise this simple principle, is to betray it – a process that will be recognisable to the respective supporters of these two visionaries, particularly revered by the survivors of their generation. Theirs is a sensitivity that will not be forgiving.
But SN’s editorial of Sunday, July 15, titled ‘History and politics’ is a very thoughtful treatment of this sensitivity. One is forced to return to a section of its last paragraph, which reads thus: “At the very least, this constant return to earlier periods is not helpful in working out a modus vivendi in relation to the current situation. Certainly where Dr Jagan’s role in independence is concerned, along with that of Burnham (and interestingly, Mr Granger gave Mr Burnham no role either in relation to independence) each party will inevitably promulgate its own story and perhaps create its own myths.”
While this latter conclusion is plausible, its delicate turn may well have veered towards the more immediate reaction of the parties who have been respectively afflicted. Again, ‘certainly Mr Granger’ would have achieved nothing less than surely offending the Jagan image, his party and followers; while, worse, possibly successfully creating the impression of having diminished the legacy of Burnham, along with the value of Burnham’s PNC – leading to the ultimate confusion about both his conviction and qualifications for leading an organisation of such politically strategic importance.
But it is about time for another sundowner to relieve the bleakness of Friday, July 13, 2012.
Yours faithfully,
E B John
