Dear Editor,
Belated completion of ‘The Agenda’ by Bob Woodward prompted some thoughts pertinent to the local scene. I share a few of them. They are directed primarily at President David Granger.
I have much appreciation for the Head-of-State; that is dangerous. But as I absorbed ‘The Agenda’ with its vivid coverage of the early Clinton White House, and his unending battles with his own, the realisation came that there are parallels here. The local president has been rightly questioned and criticised for his reticence towards being more in the public space and public consciousness. Appeals have introduced some movement. Yet, there is so much more that the president himself can do in taking the lead and solidifying his messages and positions before the people. It should not be entirely up to the responsible ministers to convey, as that is not registering enough; the president has to use his goodwill and credibility to stake out a course and, thus, give his government a better chance of reaching hearts and minds. It is understood that Guyana being what and how it is, most of the people may listen; but only some will actually hear the substance and import of what is shared. The rest will hear what they want to hear. The leader must step forward and persevere.
The taxes, neither applied nor collected before, through one political and bureaucratic shenanigan after another, must be articulated by the president now, and that such failures and burdens now rest with his government; and that his government is committed to the standard and practice of fair share, particularly as not honored by those citizens and businesses that prospered through perversity, in which not only government was allowed to be cheated, but the poor taxpayers were severely shortchanged. This must be brought before the people struggling and wondering and fearing. Next, Mr Granger has to be in the forefront of the message that Guyana, as a part of the concert of nations, and poised to take its place at a different and prestigious rung, has an obligation to be a responsible observer, partner, and enforcer of laws and standards; that this country’s continuing presence in the international family is measured by compliance with firmly established norms; and that while dirty money made much possible for the privileged, it beggared the wider nation into the ill-repute of a dark criminalised state. He must emphasise that the whiter the collar, the darker the countless crimes perpetrated here.
His Excellency has to sound the drumbeat out there (as unpalatable as he may find such) to citizens that Guyana cannot afford, cannot survive being labeled a society characterised by decayed commercial and criminal oligarchies. The many poor will suffer more; and the entangled, compromised middle class will eventually trip over and collapse on itself. These have to be repeated refrains. ‘The Agenda’ revealed the early Clinton Wars with his own people, own party, and a parliament of his own. Mr Granger should nod knowingly, definitely ruefully for he lives those. The Guyanese president must, of necessity, shed his natural reserve and take the dilemmas, conflicts, and strangling realities before the people, so as to give himself an opportunity to win the soul of the same people. The people willing to endorse change, the people who wish for a better Guyana: a clean one, a less diseased one.
The time is now to challenge openly all those who clamour and pontificate about clean governance to make the required self-sacrifices that is part of the minimum price. It is a harsh price. When the president stays in the background, the needed message is muted, fragmented, overwhelmed, and defeated. On the other hand, should the president step forward and lay things on the line through one clarion call after another, then influential fence sitters, temperature checkers, and occupied birdwatchers could just possibly be swayed. Better still, that not insubstantial legion would find itself on the defensive and under the probe of a discomforting microscope: What is stood for? How do words and actions align? What do the x-rays of exploration identify as to what is really on the inside?
I respectfully submit that the President has lost some time (some ground and face, too). He must move. President Granger has to move to the head and capture the high ground of clean visions, clean business, clean records, clean people. That high ground ought to be attractive, if not compelling, to a president like David Granger, given his previous life. He must not allow either vision or agenda to be ambushed and overrun through a pale presence. The president has to come out swinging and embark on the hard march; it is a forced march. I suspect that this president is not one given to trash talking; but I expect that he would emphasise the dismal realities that were prevalent (still are), and which accelerated the concretisation of the current pervasive cultural rot.
Last, I would expect the president to articulate to the nation all that is required to salvage the future of this brutalised society. Like Bill Clinton, David Granger must capitalise on his major asset: the goodwill of the people.
Yours faithfully,
GHK Lall
