Dear Editor,
The not-so-new government (any more) appears intent on marooning itself in precarious waters. It needs to move quickly and determinedly if only to keep its head above the heaving currents, and to dispel proliferating comparisons to its predecessors. It must do so to calm the agitated, reassure the troubled, and persuade the sceptics.
It goes without saying the honeymoon is over. The government may not have only retreated from the bedchamber, but there are increasing claims of outright desertion.
This is dangerous irreconcilable territory. Whether in the areas of emoluments, appointments, or imprisonments, the glowing courtship promises are undergoing a sustained battering. On too many occasions, the most vehement and disgruntled critics are government supporters, who feel let down, if not outright betrayal.
The barely dawned sun, bright and appealing, has already dimmed to some degree for the fast charging administration re the roiling issues of compensation (not now, not so much); sensitive job selections (be open); and release from incarceration (be even more open).
The trouble is that, in too many respects, the new regime is already walking too closely in the footsteps of the old one. The ‘no apologies’ line drawn in the sand by Minister Harmon, and the solid implacability of the President in the face of clamour about lack of transparency are neither well received, nor favourable portents.
This is what disgusted the conscientious and the concerned for a long time; this is what compelled change; this is not the change, either of quantity or quality, that was/is anticipated. Surely, those who rule this country cannot only know one way, the long failed way of governance.
The rhetoric was splendid when it flowed and soared. Unfortunately, subsequent actions embodied in the delivery, the delivery men, and the delivery mechanisms on serious matters have left principled Guyanese taking evasive steps. In fact, too many citizens are sensing too early the apprehension of being trapped between the equivalent of local political Scylla and Charybdis, and with the desolation of no alternative.
It is still too early to ask what happened to the promised servant-leaders. Those listen and absorb; they analyze and appreciate and amend accordingly. Why is there the all too familiar spectre of entitlement, the right to dominate and to dismiss? Why so much zeal to emulate the discredited disreputable old that seared the psyche of this land?
The deeply cynical within hears those in opposition crowing welcome to the party. See! It is not so easy to resist. Well, it is your turn now.
Still, call me naïve, but I believe that there is room for reforming mentalities, but only if such is harboured deep inside, if the people’s interests are put first. These same people are observing keenly with microscopes in hand; they expect much and demand much in these different revealing times. They miss nothing, leave nothing uncommented upon or unquestioned.
Last, (and although there is some disagreement) the Chinese use the same word for disaster and opportunity. This is illuminating. Perhaps the local political mandarins can be duly enlightened and seize on this, given what happened, for the way ahead. I recommend listening, and then progressing through the accommodations of adjustment from fixed positions and practices.
Yours fatihfully,
GHK Lall