Dear Editor,
There have been reports of the current United States Ambassador being an activist one, and who is constantly on the move; she has appeared in many places, some surprising to watching citizens. In spite of her relatively young tenure in this part of the world, Her Excellency, Sarah-Ann Lynch, has made more than the usual rounds, and has been most visible in places political and otherwise. I think this is exemplary, as well as telling.
First, there were images of the US Ambassador visiting the Office of the Leader of the Opposition close to the time of last Tuesday’s CCJ announcement. To the unknowing, that prompted raised eyebrows. But it shouldn’t have been so. Regardless of timing, optics and local sensitivities, protocols have to be observed, and it must be emphasized, whether appreciated or not, that the political opposition is an integral part of the nation’s governance mechanism. I don’t see how this can be otherwise, and which makes the lack of any joint leadership proposals to the CCJ’s June 24th deadline so incomprehensible, so unacceptable.
In the specific instance of the Office of the Leader of the Opposition, the visit was in response to an existing invitation. I think that this speaks favourably towards all the talk of inclusion and partnership, which has been continually fostered by the diplomatic corps, with the most senior United States envoy taking a very prominent lead in this regard. This is so, even though she has only recently arrived. In addition, there was a visit to the residence of the Opposition’s presidential candidate in honour of the Eid al-Fitr holiday. This is positive, with the US Ambassador walking the talk, and distinctively so.
It is a far cry from the time of several decades ago, immediately after communism and conflict, domestic power shifts and hard lines, and ostracism and isolation. The political veterans on both sides of the then pulsating divide will remember that the then Leader of the Opposition was persona non grata at Embassy functions, and even entry into the United States. That was the time when US visa applications contained a question about communist affiliation. And since there was a diehard Marxist in the house, that was the kiss of death. That took over a decade to sort itself out with new priorities, new vital interests, and new visions both in the local and big power arenas. I don’t have to say this, but world has changed.
In contrast, today there is outreach to everyone; even with recent rancor and differences still unhealed and unaddressed. The first message is simple and unambiguous: the United States chief representative will meet with anyone, anyplace, and at any time to assist in extricating from the political quicksand, to get to someplace that represents higher and safer ground. The second message is just as uncomplicated: there has to be working together in the local circle. There has to be reciprocal listening among the local players. There must be partnering towards progressive local objectives. For the umpteenth time, I urge from my little corner that Guyanese leaders must change towards what are worthwhile goals. It does not have to be the compulsion (and overreach) of the CCJ handing down directives to children.
In Guyana’s thorny and intractable circumstances, I see the circumstances where, once again, the international community setting the stage of openness through listening to the positions of the major players, while withholding its own collective inclinations. There are no special friends (even when there are); only what offers the greatest probability of acceptability, given broader, superseding vital interests. I submit that this has to be the mindsets of local leaders, whether liked or not. They know what they have to do.
The challenge is for Guyanese politicians to reach deep within themselves, proceed beyond the usual power formulas and limiting governance confines, and embark upon a vision and programme that seeks to leverage available assets and resources towards what is best for this society. Political leaders cannot continue to operate in sealed silos, and to turn a deaf ear to the sustained diplomatic appeals (along with corroborating actions) to make things happen. And local political leaders cannot pretend at possessing a blind eye and, thus, not seeing what is unfolding all around, through public overtures and private exhortations.
The immovable reality, is whether believed or not, Guyana is no longer an island on which leaders can either barricade or maroon themselves in defiance (willful ignorance) of all that is evolving around them, sometimes subtly, other times concretely. I say to local political leaders: you must evolve, too.
Yours faithfully,
GHK Lall
