Dear Editor,
Freedom of the press still allows Mr M Maxwell as if in contempt, to easily toss federalism over his shoulder. “This is nonsense” he said (‘Federalism is not the answer,’ SN, July 18). So what is the alternative? Mr Maxwell travelled an entire circular route to arrive exactly where he started, ie, the status quo is perfectly acceptable, as is. He prefers to ignore the ethnic security dilemma which birthed partition and power-sharing. Instead, local government elections have now become the mismatched solution, for now, and there is much relief derived to give it support.
Even as one analyses Mr Maxwell’s whisper, something is definitely afoot for him to so quickly deploy the race card. He writes “It is evident why this federalist proposal is really radicalized propaganda hiding behind political rearrangement with potentially destructive consequences.” Isn’t this the precise objective of partition and shared governance? Why is either choice better than federalism?
Partition makes us permanent enemies. In shared governance or whatever, the current gridlock in parliament would shift to the executive cabinet beyond public scrutiny. It will result in merging the executive and legislature with the judiciary outside, but in greater gridlock. Right now our leaders cannot even agree to confirm the Chief Justice and Chancellor because of ongoing gridlock.
If Mr Maxwell has inadvertently attempted to magnify any fears which he negatively links to the federalist proposal there should not be alarm. Federalism does not deny differences which inclusive governance cannot even acknowledge as legitimate. Rather, federalism embraces pacification, harmonizes accommodation and guarantees diversity to all races and cultures. It permits all groups to maximize their potential without veto hindrance or perpetual dependency on the ‘other.’
Inclusive executive governance would not permit progress until all sides are in agreement to signal the other can proceed with their development. One side can hold the others hostage in perpetuity.
Federalism accepts those fears, defuses them and allows each to maximize their true worth unhindered by the other.
Federalism would guarantee the right to exist and the survival of its citizens’ diverse cultures.
It can even begin tomorrow if there is joint agreement to publicly renounce racial violence, etc. The right to self defence is natural as it is legal worldwide.
Mr Maxwell directs that “Those who can only see their own ethnic utopias through misguided lenses must learn to look around. Guyana is not ready for federalism.”
Is he correct? What insensitivity governs Mr Maxwell’s existence that he is completely oblivious to the plight of half his countrymen by such callous indifference that nothing they say or complain about has any meaning or significance? Power-sharing or whatever, imposes perpetual racial dependency; federalism enables freedom to be all you can be within our common Guyana.
In the meantime federalism remains the inevitably wisest preferable compromise for a unifying Guyanese future. But as now, only for now mind you, “Guyana is not ready for federalism” until Guyanese are fully and most ready for federalism. That future is today and counting.
Yours faithfully,
Sultan Mohamed
