THE DOERS AND THE MAKERS

Jan 29, 2009 Features / Columnists, Peeping Tom

---

I am surprised at Uncle Freddie. He seems out of touch with reality.
Last Thursday, he asked why it was that Guyana could not produce more Gorbachevs, Mandelas and Obamas.  He ought to know why.
The Nobel Laureate, V. S. Naipaul, has answered this question in almost all of his novels. He has consistently portrayed our societies as too small, devoid of history and lacking, in sufficient numbers, of men and women of talent, creativity and vision. He has suggested that what passes for governance is mimicry.
There are times when I look at Guyana and am forced to concede that Naipaul was spot on. I am forced to admit to the fact that far too many without skill are catapulted to political power, not understanding how this power is to be used, not understanding the limitations of small societies, not understanding that drama is no substitute for achievement, not understanding their history and the challenges they face.
We can overcome these hurdles to achievement and greatness. But it requires a clear acceptance of the measures necessary to bring about this change.
The first of these ingredients is the need for an appropriate ideology.  Both Cheddi Jagan and Forbes Burnham failed to appreciate what the Russians recognized after the collapse of the paper revolution in Grenada. Russia was convinced after Grenada that socialism could not be established in small countries. This was based on the Russians’ assessment of the size, history and culture of our economy and people.
Both Cheddi and Burnham failed to appreciate this fact. They also failed to understand their own people.  Guyanese are not interested in an egalitarian society.  The average Guyanese wants the means by which he can be richer than his neighbour, and, as somebody once said, to have a better job than the husband of his wife’s sister.
Both of these political leaders also underestimated the impact of colonialism. The colonial idea was a powerful idea and we have been unable to free ourselves of its hegemony. Burnham tried to do this by downplaying Christmas and having us dress in a certain way. No sooner were his eyes closed that we returned to dreaming of a white Christmas and wearing jacket, suit and tie.
If we are therefore destined to an open economy, then the leadership of the country needs to allow the people of this country to accept the precepts of a capitalist society, one which rewards individual initiative and which does not demand that the creativity of the individual be subordinated to the will of the majority. A man’s gifts and his talents are his to be used to make him richer and better, not to be owned and possessed by the society in which he lives.
One of the tragedies of post-colonial societies has been our unwillingness to accept the consequences of a market economy and the forms of social and political organization which guarantee the success of such systems.
There can be no success if too many underachievers are entrusted with political power.  For far too long, governments in many post-colonial small societies have been stacked with political minions whose only claim to achievement and fame is their membership of a political party or movement.. These non-achievers obscure the work of their better counterparts. They also pose obstructions to personal liberty and individual accomplishment.

As Naipaul noted in one of his novels, ‘People who have achieved the trappings of power for no reason they can see, are afraid of losing that power. They are insecure because they see so many, too many like themselves.’
And yet there are moments in history that allow leaders to surmount this hurdle, to resist the temptation to rely only on the trusted and compliant.
Such a moment now exists in Guyana. There is just over two years left for the current administration and yet this is sufficient time in which to create the conditions and make the changes that are necessary to move this country forward.
The leadership of Guyana has to seize this opportunity when adjustments have to be made in the face of a global financial crisis to make the right changes by involving men and women of calibre in the administration of this country, not necessarily at the epicentre of political power, but by allowing them to play a role, even if it is in giving wise counsel.
There are many good men and women within our society who are willing to make a contribution to moving Guyana forward. They are achievers. They are the doers and makers; men and women with their ears to the ground and their eyes looking upwards, mindful of the endless possibilities ahead.
These are the men and women who should be embraced, whose advice should be sought and whose involvement in Guyana should be secured.

---

---