It is by no means the most uplifting of pursuits to zero in on every seemingly well-intentioned initiative undertaken by government and to shovel criticisms at those without seeking, first, to probe their virtues without passing verdict, one way or another. The problem here in Guyana is that the entrenched toxicity of our political environment rarely if ever affords us such luxuries. In the circumstances we are robbed of the prerogative of studied and objective contemplation and condemned to pass judgment on the basis of the pre-existing biases in which we are imprisoned rather than on the basis of the objective realities that obtain at any given point in time.
To move with alacrity from that million-dollar question to whether, perhaps, we could wake up one day to be greeted with a level of political broadmindedness that allows, even amidst our muddled political circumstances, for there to be some measure of voluntary consultation between opposing sides on matters of national importance. Even if we are not always able to arrive at a modus vivendi, would we not have established a pattern of dialogue, a pattern of consultation that might create an enabling environment for a better outcome next time around? Where, one might ask, does a country go when we remain locked in a cupboard of hardball politics and where all the shots are called, from one period of time to another, by those who rule?
Contextually, to shift to last Tuesday’s launch by the President of the government’s Agriculture and Innovation Entrepreneurship initiative which, according to an official release, seeks to “bolster the agriculture sector, empower youths and create jobs” might there not be a concern here that such an initiative ought to benefit from some measure bipartisan discourse.? While it is hardly a question of making a qualitative judgement of the initiative does it not resemble exactly the kind of idea that ought to be subjected to some kind of ‘sit down session’ in order to avoid it slipping to some black hole of controversy and derision which, once it arrives there, will have to remain, almost certainly, forever, in a condition of partisan public judgement? Is this not exactly the kind of circumstance that can trigger controversies that metamorphose into confrontations that can sometimes turn ugly? Is there even the slightest likelihood that the political sides can agree on a ‘sitting down’ over this issue, a step that might not only pave the way for its uncontroversial implementation (perhaps with a few tweaks, here and there) but might also set a precedent, create a template that could contribute to the fashioning of an altogether more uplifting, less bothersome political culture to that within which all of us have served debilitating life sentences? Or are we so far gone down this road of political perdition that we simply have no idea as to how to turn the proverbial corner?
