WHAT IS SOURCE OF OUR FEARS?

Feb 02, 2013 Features / Columnists, Peeping Tom

---

Dr. Ali Mazrui, the renowned African scholar NEVER said that it is unfortunate that for a sizeable portion of Guyana’s population, the memory of hate is not great.
While it is debatable that the memory of hate in Guyana is also short, it would be inaccurate to attribute such a statement to Mazrui.
Ali Mazrui never commented on Guyana’s historical memory of hate. He came to Guyana in 1988 as part of observances that were organized to mark the 150th anniversary of Emancipation and he did not dabble in our country’s fractured politics.
During his address, he did however publicly urg0e then President Desmond Hoyte to restore “national legitimacy” to Walter Rodney. This appeal was greeted by warm applause from the audience.
Mazrui never dealt with how deep or lasting was the memory of hate in Guyana. In the context of his address he argued that on his continent there is a short memory of hate.
Mazrui has, as an academic, consistently argued this position. It was his way of advancing the view that in Africa there is a culture of tolerance. He never discussed the memory of hate in Guyana; never did, at any time.
He called for national legitimacy to be restored to Walter Rodney. This call could not have been more misdirected. It was asking too much of the then PNC government which the WPA once held responsible for the murder of Rodney, to deliver “national legitimacy” to Rodney.
Further, Rodney did not need national legitimacy. He has been described as the “prophet of self emancipation” and certainly does not need the stamp of legitimacy from a government which his party held culpable for his assassination.
The call for “national legitimacy” must not be confused with the call for the closure to be put to his death. This latter call which was consistently supported by his party was made by the family of Rodney. It was made during the 25th anniversary observances of his death.
There has been no closure. This process became a victim of opportunistic politics from within Rodney’s party. His family’s request for closure became a victim of the WPA quest for alliance politics.
The lack of closure was a sad outcome for a party which claimed to be Rodneyite but which was clearly willing to sacrifice Rodney on the altar of political opportunism.
Any possibility of bringing closure to Rodney’s assassination is now remote even though the PNCR has publicly indicated that it supports such an inquiry.
The WPA never demanded any act of contrition from the PNC before it jumped into bed with that party under the banner of APNU.
The “confession” that the WPA was stockpiling weapons at the time of Rodney’s death will open a can of worms should any inquiry be held. This “confession” will perpetually haunt the WPA.
Recently when there was a call for an investigation into violence in Guyana between 2006 and 20011, there was a rejoinder as to why such a call did not extend to the death of Rodney, the ballot box martyrs and all those who were killed or robbed in the crime wave that followed the 2002 prison break.
The call for an investigation into post 2004 violence is part of APNU’s agenda in prosecuting its campaign promises. This is why it is spending so much time passing non- binding motions in the National Assembly and then seeking to apply censure for no compliance with these non-binding motions.
Like the AFC, APNU feels obligated to ensure that its campaign promises are at least placed on the parliamentary agenda. This is why there was a Bill tabled to cap the benefits for former Presidents. And this is why there was a motion tabled to investigate violence after 2004.
These were all campaign issues of APNU and therefore they feel that they must do something to fulfill the promises they made on these issues even though they do hold political power.
Their supporters are not going to hold the non-fulfillment of these promises against them because the supporters know that APNU does not have executive power.
This fact however does not mean that careful consideration should not be given to investigating violence in Guyana or whether any such investigation will contribute to national reconciliation.
There is a view that holds that digging up these skeletons from the past will do more harm than good. There is also the view that a limited investigation into selected episodes of violence will create greater unease than any good that it will serve. It is contended that what is needed is a wider Truth and Reconciliation process.
But will such a process really heal the wounds of the past, or will the suggestion flow from an exaggeration of our historic memory of conflict?
Have we moved on from that past and are the demons that now scare us of more recent vintage rather than historical in nature? Does the memory of hate still exist or have we moved on? In short are our fears of more recent vintage or are we still trapped by the past?

---

---