Let’s not depend on what has historically found neither favour nor foundation

Aug 09, 2019 Letters

---

DEAR EDITOR,

I refer to a letter from Ms. Nutana Singh titled, “I believe the government is letting its hand of immaturity show” (KN August 8). I am delighted that insistent lessons shared to question and challenge registered in a well-presented writing. Surprising as to source and content; but well-received. The courtesy of a reply is due.
First, at Gecom’s reported rate of registration, the legwork and groundwork – the most time-consuming component logistically – should be over in approximately six weeks, if not before. Even accounting for fingerprint testing and claims and objections spans, I persist in my position that elections could be held this year, with both sides agreeing to the unthinkable and impossible. My personal reading is that the government so desires; nothing official, has no standing.
Regardless, that means government and opposition meeting, discussing, negotiating, and finalizing right now the mechanics of a compromise. Nothing should be set in stone beforehand: not date, not list, not process; or else it is the regular, pointless arguments of who is right and who is wrong, with absolutely nothing achieved. A recent example of behind-the-scenes compromise is the presence of a Gecom chair, which was thought undoable.
Now the challenge to deliver another example: is before us today the claims and objections period could be narrowed. Thinking men, believed astute leaders, hopefully pragmatic patriots must be at work to get to that middle ground. If not, then it is curtains.
If it is about power alone and at all costs, then we are doomed and done; going nowhere, but to greater and more tragic depths. Let me be clear: both government and opposition have unclean hands; what has been happening is numerous public leadership dissensions, but no private leadership conversations.
Unlike Ms. Singh, I appreciate there is enough material to apply many coats of the same ugly paint to both. Repeat: both groups; there are only visible and audible leadership failures to absorb.
Thus, I must part with Ms. Singh, when she holds forth that the opposition has been “generous.” To itself and supporters, yes; from my standpoint “generous” contradicts the hard stances that are so relished, flows so uninterruptedly; and which have backed into a corner without any exit strategy. That is, other than continuing with the language and actions of gauntlets thrown down.
Like I said, though less shrill and strident, the government is also culpable. And that is part of the problem that is the stark and very realpolitik of Guyana: immovable force standing before irresistible force functioning in frozen time.
Further, Ms. Singh’s has urged others like herself to a hold “a hardline.” I regret hearing that, since all that we have around here are hardlines and hard people and hard results that leave us in hard, unlivable, intolerable places. Surely, she should comprehend that hardlines across the board and the years are what have us where we are. Hardlines mean harder hearts and the hardest minds. I would like to be enlightened as to what is there to show for all the hardness.
Still further, and regarding her mention of the constitution, I am appalled that this wretched, dreadful, Machiavellian apparition that has caused so much destruction continues to offer comfort, when it has been universally damned, and is almost nationally despised.
No sane Guyanese should take the backward step of relying upon that evil concoction that was crafted to mislead and tie in countless knots. Rather than the backward, I suggest starting from scratch, as though it does not exist. Has it not caused the nation enough hemorrhaging and paralyzing?
Next, I read that Ms. Singh referred to December 21st. Every Guyanese knows (or should) what has menaced by the slenderest of threads since that fateful date.
that as a starting point, I will be bold enough to prophesy that whether elections were held since then, or tomorrow, or anytime thereafter, there would be no loser conceding, no winner governing (in some acceptable sense of the word), and no more of what is now the fragile tranquility of a phony peace.
Is this what is longed for by any conscientious Guyanese? The same tensions and economic traumas? The impasses and intrackabilities of – and in – the same holes? Isn’t it wise to seek to resolve differences, if only partially and temporarily, right now?
Because in any convulsive post-election climate, all the lofty and noble references to constitution and courts and democracy will collapse before the force of circumstances overcome by the rush of overwhelming events. Too late for dialogue; too early for compromise then. Who would give a damn about Article X and subsection Y at that stormy hour?
In keeping with the above, it is why I persevere in exhorting not to depend on what has historically found neither favour nor foundation. Instead, I appeal that we listen to the better angels in our nature, if only to give the breathing space of continuity.
Last, I remind Ms. Singh of one of the lessons consistently imparted: speak of own convictions; speak with voice true to self. Stay the course.
Sincerely,
GHK Lall

---

---