Dear Editor,
National unity is a political whipping horse that has attracted innumerable jockeys on Guyana’s post-independent political turf. Protagonists and fans alike have embraced it, not necessarily because they believe in its virtues, but because of the populist political appeal which it generates in an ethnically polarized society like ours. It cloaks them with a veneer of impartiality, a virtual safe-house, amidst the ethnic enclaves. Though they may number in the hundreds, if not thousands, not one of those chanting the mantra of “national unity”, at least as far as I can recall, has taken the time and energy to articulate in a document for public scrutiny, what this concept connotes, how it can be achieved and how it will manifest itself practically, pragmatically and politically. Indeed, I have no doubt that there exists great diversity and disparity of views regarding the nature and purport of this concept even among its most vociferous advocates.
From public outpourings, I surmise ‘national unity’ to be an end viewed by its advocates as a panacea to most, if not all, of the political, social and economic ills resulting from the ethnic fragmentation which pervades this society. A ‘national unity/national front government’ has been one of the vehicles, loosely and sporadically, identified in public discourses to take us to this utopian-like destination. Those who are of this school of thought have obviously accepted that the current constitutional model of government is inadequate and inefficient to take us there. That a national unity/national front government will ineluctably lead to the creation of a one party state devoid of any real checks and balances against abuse of executive power by those who will form one monolithic government and the dangers and ramifications which flow therefrom, I don’t think, are realities to which these political cheerleaders have addressed their minds. But this will be a discourse for another time.
In recent weeks, ‘national unity’ has once again raised its elusive head. At a recent meeting between President David Granger and Leader of the Opposition, Cde Bharrat Jagdeo, President Granger proposed the establishment of a ‘National Unity Committee.’ No terms of reference or indeed anything else in relation thereto was proposed. A few days thereafter we were met with another announcement emanating from government that this committee will not be led by the President but by Prime Minister Moses Nagamootoo. If the achievement of national unity is so fundamental to our national interest and if the government is as committed to this concept as they would like the nation to believe, why is the President not discharging this grave and sacrosanct responsibility himself, but is delegating it to the Prime Minister, to whom he has refused to delegate the chairmanship of cabinet and other agreed responsibilities under the Cummingsburg Accord?
Indeed and more significantly, it appears that the President did not properly brief the Prime Minister on this matter. How else can one explain the Prime Minister’s announcement that “we are prepared to open the doors to the PPP if they want to enter this government because we want to have an all-inclusive government.” This is radically and conceptually very different from what the President has proposed. Or is it that the Prime Minister, characteristically, is mis-speaking again, like his description of the Chronicle as a “government newspaper” as opposed to a state media or his recent self-anointment as a “judicial officer”. Whatever may be the reason, it does not convey the impression that the government is serious about pursuing a path of national unity. If it is serious, then at a minimum, it should put out a White Paper on what it considers the concept to mean, what it conceives as its objectives and how it believes those objectives can be achieved. At this stage, engaging in discussions about a concept that is so nebulous and whose parameters are virtually unknown would be a futile exercise.
Additionally, because of the very nature of the concept itself, any government that wishes to embark upon a course of action intended to achieve national unity must, invariably, create a conducive atmosphere that would make ensuing discussions both constructive and fruitful. Mass dismissals of public officers and contractual workers of the state in a manner that reeks of political and ethnic discrimination, political witch-hunting and executive arrogance will not create such an atmosphere but indeed will achieve the reverse. It was Martin Luther King Jr who said “peace is not the absence of war but the presence of love, brotherhood and unity.” I submit that such a peaceful atmosphere is a prerequisite to any engagement which touches and concerns national unity, whatever definition and connotations are attached to it.
Yours faithfully,
Mohabir Anil Nandlall
