What about-isms

As we enter 2025, the so-called “silly season” is in full effect, bringing one of the most exasperating political behaviours: what about-isms. It’s a tired and lazy deflection strategy that scarcely deserves a second thought. Yet, it has somehow become a prevalent response to criticism, a means of sidestepping the issues of today by referencing the past. What ought to be a moment for reflection and accountability has been overtaken by finger-pointing and historical references.

For instance, consider the continuing issues surrounding the Cliff Anderson Sports Hall. Following two years and an astonishing $351 million worth of renovations, the hall still misses essential features—like new bucket seats, and a properly functioning HVAC system, among others. At the very least, one would expect a reasonable inquiry into why these basic requirements remain unfulfilled despite the grand commitments of “world-class” facilities. Instead of addressing the current shortcomings, the all-too-familiar response is: “What about D’urban Park?” How does a project from five years ago—entangled in its controversies—relate to the present condition of the Cliff Anderson Sports Hall? The effort to divert attention to the past not only neglects the current issue but also underscores the profound incompetence that has become ingrained in our management of public projects. This is a prime example of what about-isms, wherein accountability for actions is perpetually evaded because there’s always a prior failure to reference.

This regression in discourse permeates beyond construction initiatives. The Minister of Agriculture dedicated much of his 2024 performance review to lamenting how his predecessor mishandled the sugar sector. In what reality does this logic hold? Instead of acknowledging the sector’s ongoing underachievement on his watch, he blamed the previous administration, as if that somehow offsets his accountability.

When individuals inquire why billions are being poured into the seemingly failing sugar industry, the typical reply is: “What about when Granger closed the factories?” However, it can be argued that the decline of the sugar industry began many years before Granger’s administration. This what about-ism only diverts attention from the stark reality that today’s challenges in the sugar sector are a result of poor choices and a lack of planning from those in power now and those before Granger’s time as well (the Euro preferential rates ending had a lot to do with this).

Imagine your child currently failing a school subject and casting blame on a teacher from the last term. Would you accept that as a valid justification? Certainly not. You expect them to take charge of their current situation and strive for improvement. Yet, this is the rationale employed by politicians who think incessantly referencing the past is sufficient to distract the electorate from their shortcomings.

The younger voting demographic, aged 18 to 35, emerged long after the Burnham and Cheddi era, yet both major political parties persist in dragging these figures into conversations as if events from the 1970s and 80s hold much relevance for today’s governance. Much of the PPP’s electoral rhetoric is “What about before 1992?” The reality is that most young voters possess no direct memories of before 1992 nor Burnham nor Cheddi, and their understanding is largely shaped by hearsay and historical narratives that often point to an imaginary time that exists in the nether regions of those minds who experienced it. So why, in 2025, are we still hearing mentions of Burnham every time a government official is called to account for a deficiency? Why do we continue to deflect the past rather than confront the tangible and immediate shortcomings “What about the history of the other side?”? It is time to let Burnham and Cheddi find peace in the afterlife wherever they may be and for current politicians to confront the issues they’ve inherited and created instead of hiding behind historical grievances.

VP Jagdeo’s 2024 comments regarding extrajudicial killings during the PNC administration were met with the inevitable rebuttal: “What about all the people who were killed during the PPP’s tenure?” This reflexive response is as unproductive as it is wearying.

A cycle of endless what about-ism fails to tackle the pressing issues we are facing. Whether related to systemic challenges impacting law enforcement, governance, or public services, shifting blame does not lead to solutions. Instead, it reveals a political class that refuses to accept responsibility for failures.

When criticism is directed at the Guyana Power and Light (GPL), Minister Indar often resorts to the tried-and-true tactic: “What about when Patterson was the Minister?” It is important to note that Patterson left office over five years ago. Rather than engaging in productive dialogue about present issues, this deflection has become so automatic that it is seen as standard practice, if not an accepted norm.

As we enter this new election year, we should contemplate: what benefit does constant what about-ism bring? Does it aid us in making any advancements? Does it hold anyone accountable for the persistent failures we face? Or does it merely perpetuate a cycle of blame and avoidance?

 It is time to rise above the past and directly confront the present. Let’s find the courage to acknowledge our shortcomings, accept responsibility, and strive for improvement. If we fail, we’ll remain trapped in the same monotonous cycle, forever asking, “What about…?” without uncovering a solution.

Today's Paper

The ePaper edition, on the Web & in stores for Android, iPhone & iPad.

Included free with your web subscription. Learn more.