There has been much comment on the proclivity of the present regime and its associates to name and rename various national objects and institutions, and this article has been prompted by the dispute over its wish to rename Ogle International Airport and the possibility that the City Council might give rise to more controversy if it still has on its agenda the renaming of 100 city streets for our Jubilee celebrations.
I am not too concerned here about the pros and con of the various changes that have taken place or are being proposed. I believe that given the nature of the process by which these changes are made, sooner or later controversy was inevitable. Subjectivism is inherent in any process of naming and particularly in divided places such as Guyana, the trick, therefore, must be the establishment of naming institutions that will disperse that subjectivism.
Generally, I am with those who are against the renaming of streets and other social artifacts in a fashion that permanently removes the names from their physical local space. All existing names could provide interesting outdoor history lessons, and as we proceed to enhance our culture product, we will find that names with some significant history tend to be of much more interest to visitors. On the whole, we should focus on naming the new things we build. But even on the rare occasions when it is necessary to rename, we should in some way (perhaps by the placing of some small plaque or smaller print on the plaque with the new name) save the old name.
That said, I believe that the major problem facing the disputants in the current Ogle International Airport controversy is not the justification for wanting or not wanting the change in name but the narrow unilateral nature of the process of changing. On occasion, a prominent place may have to be immediately found for an important individual, and since most of these will have already been taken, renaming has to take place. Last Sunday’s Stabroek News editorial, commenting on the decision by the previous regime to rename Timehri International Airport, the Cheddi Jagan International Airport, pointed to the main shortcomings of the process.
‘By far its biggest mistake – and it was a major one – was the renaming of Timehri airport the Cheddi Jagan International (CJIA). … The governing party was unconcerned that this was a name which had had public input, and with which all the political parties had been in accord. The airport by virtue of its appellation was also the one major institution in this country which honoured the Indigenous people. … [However] [i]n a new baptism, the nation’s largest international airport was then conferred with the name of the leader of one of the two major political parties…’
The present quarrel over the renaming of Ogle International Airport has again brought us face to face with the subjectivism that of necessity inheres in this kind of decision-making process. In a multi-ethnic and very politically divided society such as ours, this suggests that decisions about naming should not be left solely to individuals or those of partisan persuasions. What is required is the establishment of a broad-based social arrangement to properly consider and advise the relevant government official on the necessary course of action.
Multicultural and multilingual South Africa provides an example of how Guyana could institutionalise a more objective arrangement, albeit that in spite of these arrangements, given the history of that country, violent disputes have arisen over the naming of streets and other national artefacts.
Until 1998, a National Place Names Committee of South Africa advised the relevant minister on the changing of names. But in that year an act was passed based on a 1967 resolution of the United Nations Conference on the Standardization of Geographical Names. This conference had called upon all countries to organise national names authorities as a first step in international standardization of geographical names. The authorities should have clearly stated authority and instructions for the standardization of geographical names and the determination of a names standardization policy within the country and relevant status, composition, functions and procedures.
The South African Geographical Names Council is a permanent advisory body whose main function is to advise the minister responsible for arts and culture on names to be used for official purposes of populated and unpopulated places and geographical features, and to give the minister the power to approve or reject proposed geographical names. By 2007, a major complaint had arisen as to whether the powers of the council were insufficient to prevent various subsidiary bodies from acting unilaterally.
As perhaps should have been expected, the fall of the apartheid regime gave rise to numerous disputes about the names of streets and other sites. For example, in Durban as late as 2007, the process was marred by violent protest, political bickering and legal challenges. The major problem, as it now appears in Guyana, was with consultation or the lack thereof, and there were the demands for unanimity in the decision making process.
Absence of sufficient consultation was at the heart of applications in the Durban High Court in which it was claimed that the requirement that the Names Council should consult ‘all addressees and all other affected parties’ was not followed. The court was asked to set aside a council decision to rename eight streets and two buildings. (http://mg.co.za/article/2007-06-29-renaming-history).
I am not aware that Guyana has ever established a national names authority and if it has not, one that is sufficiently broad-based to disperse the subjectivity inherent in the naming process could be created.
What the South African experience shows is that in itself this kind of institutional infrastructure must not only be properly resourced and managed but have at its heart a commitment to deep consultation if it is to prevent ethnic fervour and other concerns from boiling over.
