Guyana is in the midst of a bitter and divisive struggle. Unfortunately what is perceived to be at stake is not the winning of an election but the holding of power by one “side” or the other. Given this state of affairs, considerations objectively all-important, such as the Constitution and the National Good, are seen as not all-important anymore—“Power for us” is the be-all and end-all of political life.
But that way pursued will have a most inglorious, impoverishing and discreditable end you can be absolutely sure, oil or no oil. The only hope is that enough Guyanese of good will and good sense will be found to restore faith in what is indeed all-important.
A large part of what is needed is to embed in the body politic the habit of civility. And, in the context of this need, let us consider the life and example of one of the most sensible, open-minded and civilised men who ever lived. Anton Chekhov, born in 1860, became a doctor and practised his profession devotedly. But he also turned himself into one of Russia’s greatest writers. In a wonderfully creative life of only 44 years, he was able to divide his time between “medicine…my lawful wife and literature…my mistress.” He wrote perfect stories of shining lucidity and his plays – the celebrated Uncle Vanya, The Seagull and The Cherry Orchard, amongst others – revolutionised the theatre of his day and have provided succeeding generations with vivid insights into how men and women suffer and exult, love and hate, when living even the most ordinary and uneventful lives. “People,” Chekhov pointed out, “eat their dinner, just eat their dinner, and in the meantime their happiness is taking shape or their lives are being destroyed.”
As a doctor, Chekhov tended thousands of peasants in a clinic on his estate, planned and helped build schools, endowed libraries, and scraped together money and support for a multitude of other causes. This first-hand involvement with day-to-day practicalities made him scornful of all-or-nothing recipes for universal salvation. He was once accused of writing a story that lacked “ideology.” “But doesn’t the story,” Chekhov responded, “protest against lying from start to finish? Isn’t that an ideology?”
In a famous letter to the editor of a journal which had begun to publish his work, he outlined his credo: “I am neither liberal, nor conservative, nor gradualist, nor monk, nor indifferentist. I would like to be a free artist and nothing else. ……Pharisaism, dulwittedness, and tyranny reign not only in merchants’ homes and police stations. I see them in science, in literature, and among the younger generation. That is why I cultivate no particular predilection for policemen, butchers, scientists, writers or the younger generation. I look upon tags and labels as prejudices. My holy of holies is the human body, health, intelligence, talent, inspiration, love and…freedom from violence and lies, no matter what form the latter two take.” What shines through in Chekhov’s life is his plain humanity, the allowance he made for peoples’ weaknesses and foibles, the understanding he showed for beliefs he did not share, the respect he cultivated for the personalities of others, and his disposition to seek arrangements which brought out the best in all whom he encountered.
Would that the spirit of Anton Chekhov might preside amidst the tense debates going on in Guyana. The civility which he stood for all his life is going to have to prevail in such debates. And in this connection my thesaurus gives a wide range of words and phrases associated with civility: common courtesy, considerate attention, graciousness, politeness, tactfulness, diplomacy, amiability, obligingness, benevolence, agreeableness, kind words, generosity of spirit, respect, attentiveness, good temper, amity, peacefulness, fair-mindedness – to name some of them. A tall order, to say the least, in the context of embittered Guyana nowadays.
Sadly, but certainly, Guyanese cannot expect miracles of sudden and comprehensive national accommodation. Nor, however, can they wait interminably for more than lip service to the National good.
I have no doubt that the main burden of seeking to entrench the elements of a lasting accommodation will fall on the winners of the coming election. It is they who must take the main initiatives, show the greater magnanimity, rise above rebuffs and never seek refuge in a majoritarian redoubt.
And it is, of course, the leader of the winning side who bears the chief responsibility, by far, to ensure that the process of accommodation does not slacken. It will not be easy. It will be very hard. The personal qualities required are not at all ordinary: the ability to forget past opposition and even insults, the capacity to soothe injured feelings and disappointed hopes which, if left untended, will harden into permanent hostility, the willingness to assume responsibility for the failures and bad-mindedness of subordinates and correct them, the rare ability to share credit comfortably, the largeness of spirit it takes to admit mistakes readily and learn from those mistakes, the determination to find the time to keep trying again and again. All that is hard but it is not impossible if the President – whoever he is- wishes to leave a great legacy.
