In positing, last Friday, that we, the Guyanese people, need to choose between recrimination and reconciliation, we had, in part, hoped that we would stimulate the type of public discussion that this newspaper has always championed. As is well known, our letters page was particularly dear to the heart of our founding editor-in-chief, David de Caires, who advocated the “broad church” approach – all views were welcome, as long as they did not overstep the bounds of legality and morality. As for the risk that not all contributions might be altruistic and that unwritten rules of fair play and notions of basic decency might be infringed, well, we have always preferred to let people´s words speak for themselves and allow the public to come to their own judgments regarding prejudices, motives and agendas.
Thus, we were especially pleased when last Friday´s leader (Recrimination or reconciliation?) prompted some 15 online comments ranging from the pithy to the expository – but almost all relevant, trenchant even – and from the anonymous to the self-identified, with regular bloggers among the former and the familiar names of Abu Bakr, CI Lewis, Sean McLean and Emile Mervin representing those who are willing and able to be publicly associated with their views.
Since the vast majority of our readers are hard copy readers, they are, of course, at something of a disadvantage in this particular discussion. Permit us therefore to summarise the salient points of the mini online debate.
All, by their participation in the discussion obviously subscribed to the view that our country has a major problem. All seemed to be in agreement that we need to answer the question posed by Mr Bakr, “What prevents us from moving on?” The answers varied from the absence of mutual trust and trust in our politicians to a lack of leadership deficit, poor governance, no accountability, corruption and racism.
Not all, however, were agreed on how to achieve reconciliation or, indeed, whether reconciliation alone is the solution. As one blogger put it, “Is it `reconciliation´ that is needed? Or just equal access to power via elections at every level, and a constitution that no longer validates dictatorship? Does anyone doubt that the exodus would end if there were equal opportunity in Guyana?” These are intriguing questions, all the more incisive in light of the government´s seeming comfort with the Burnham constitution and its continued refusal to hold local government elections.
But we have to start somewhere. We need healing, as Mr Mervin suggests, with forgiveness and reconciliation going hand in hand. The problem is, who will lead, who will eschew the stone-throwing and take the first step out of the glasshouse along the path to national unity and the ideal of peace and prosperity for all?
Perhaps just perhaps, the answer lies in views such as those submitted in a letter by Marissa Lowden of the Blue CAPS on Tuesday (Guyanese should support national unity), in which she calls on citizens to “demand more from our leaders” and “start thinking for ourselves and refrain from buying into propagandistic narratives that aim to divide us and harm our country’s future.” We should, moreover, if we interpret Ms Lowden correctly, exercise our democratic right to effect change.
Yes, there may be a Catch-22 here and Ms Lowden may be accused of idealism but at least, there is hope for the country if ideas like this can emanate from our youth. At some stage, cynicism has to give way to idealism if we are to find the will, the energy and the means to move forward.
