Dear Editor,
A recently aired GlobeSpan24X7 programme discussed ‘Leadership and Politics in Guyana Past & Present’, the presenters being Ralph Ramkarran SC, former Speak-er of the National Assembly and Hamilton Green, former Mayor of Georgetown. The discussion progressed around a mix of race and politics with national unity taking center stage; Guyanese are not unfamiliar with the narratives on each issue. We are, on a daily basis, bombarded with information and misinformation about them. The same issues kept recurring over and over but with stark differences in opinion. In the circumstances, a keen listener would be tempted to ponder whether humans should enjoy or regret having differences in opinion. Regrettably, the narratives did not build on what has, historically or contemporarily, been written or spoken on the three issues. On the contrary, the discussion was a regurgitation of the old, hackneyed shibboleths. For the umpteenth time, the question of national unity came across as the favourite perceptual illusion with an ambiguous image.
To listeners, national unity appeared as an abstract notion with no connection to uplifting the lives of Guyanese. It was as if water was being poured on a duck’s back. But the irony of this situation is that the records of both the PPP and PNC, on the question of national unity, speak for themselves. What is this national unity we speak about? Is it the surreal ‘coming together’ of the PPP and PNC in some imaginary structural form and/or shape? Or, will it be based on uncannily prescient policies and values? In considering either of the two scenarios hypothetically, would that ‘coming together’ signify the consummation of national unity? Thus far, the call for national unity appears to be a romanticized appeal to arouse national sentiments amongst the populace. It certainly does not put bread on the table nor money in anyone’s pocket. What is this pathway to the national unity we speak of and write about? Is there more than one pathways? If so, which is the preferred one? In any event, how convinced are we that national unity is the solution to Guyana’s problems? Are there inherent dangers, real or imagined, on the road to national unity? If so, what are they? Why national unity and to what end? Is it because it is politically correct and attractive to call for? Would Guyanese be better off or worst under conditions of national unity? Will national unity result in a win-win, a win-lose or lose-lose outcome for any of the protagonists? What happens in the absence of national unity? Will Guyana be considered a failed state? Or will Guyanese achieve their goals knowing that such goals depends on what class or social strata holds the reigns of political power?
At any rate, the call for national unity is hollow and meaningless to ordinary Guyanese since at the political, much less social levels, there is no convergence in policies, beliefs, thoughts nor opinions amongst those who engage in its advocacy. This begs the question whether any space exists in Guyana’s present body politic to accommodate national unity in form and content? Thus far, there are no foot prints indicating that we are headed in the direction towards national unity, and if there were footprints, they have long faded. Suffice it to say, there were two bright spots in two separate and distinct periods in our country’s political history when relative national unity prevailed. That was sixty-eight years ago in the 1950-1953 period and forty-five years ago in 1974-1976 period. The two protagonists of national unity at that time were Forbes Burnham and Cheddi Jagan who died thirty-six and twenty-four years ago respectively. Any discussion on national unity in today’s context would require a meeting of minds by all political parties and non-state actors. Their respective track records on the subject should be scrutinized, and a commitment given to deepen the discussion in order to provide Guyanese with a more enlightened understanding of the national unity we seek and that it is not a utopia. In the circumstances, no one narrative should take precedence over another. We need to find ways to openly discuss the issues and balance different values in our plural society. A more integrated, inclusive thinking on all sides could prove helpful.
Sincerely,
Clement J. Rohee