Only a national government would permit us to progress beyond this ugly impasse

May 31, 2020 Letters

---

Dear Editor,

In dribs and drabs, the individual positions and visions in support of some form of unified or national or shared governance arrangement have surfaced and eased away, only to reappear and linger. It is the most undesired and unwelcomed stepchild at this time. It is disowned, dismissed, and distanced from with the greatest of denunciations. It may have siblings, but currently it has only one feeble parent.
The voices and scribes in favor of a national front government are largely black and pro-coalition (to some extent), with a smattering of Indian voices in the mix. The Indians, because of their perceived racial abandonment and racial treachery, are greeted with the sharpest scorn; they are seen as dilutive and distracting from the push for power. My own position made public two decades ago (and recently) is known and need not be repeated.
Whether black or brown, or pro-coalition or simply of a nationalist patriotic bent, any calls for such a governance mechanism, even on a temporary basis, are seen as self-serving and seeking backdoor entry into the power apparatus. These calls are damned from their first syllable of utterance with every listening, non-receptive breath as unfair, undemocratic, and possessing of the worst unsavoriness. Those doing the damning need no demographic identification, their political coloration hardened into rigid palettes. The passionate and verbally violent rejections of any introduction, any communication, any vision that a unified political architecture could help significantly with finding and embarking upon a way out of our political, racial, and social quagmire distills to this bleakest of states: It is of one hand clapping. And even then, with some fingers not joining wholeheartedly. It will be whatever it will be, since to essay any such is doomed.
Notwithstanding all of the harsh unambiguous objections, I must be candid and say that is exactly what we look at -self-destruction. Recently, there were measured questions about the presence (or conspicuous absence) of the potential chief executive of this land. Despite the usual reflexive defensive efforts from partisans, I am glad it came up, and for several reasons. Though none of the questioners were out of order, their tempered public inquiries conceal much individual disbeliefs and dismay (disgust even) at such a prospect. If this is who and what we could be saddled with, then what future? If in this crucible, there is disappearing from, shielding from, and settling for retreating from the demands on the ground, then what kind of president and commander-in-chief is this to be respected to any degree? If the de facto field general has to carry weight and is so concerned as to conceal limitations of the waiting expectant contestant, then what should be our concerns? The specific tribal confidences? The nation’s misgivings?
In sum, it is today that when his voice should be the most inspiring, his constant presence the most reassuring, his environmental and national fellowship the most warming, he is nowhere. He is neither in the forefront of the charge, nor projecting a powerful personal stand on the present divisive issues. He is nowhere. Sure, he is out and about, but is that it? Is that all? I am asking this again: Do we have another hopeful leader content to be water carrier and baggage handler? I hope not.
I hope not for several piercing reasons. From my observations, my examinations, and my conclusions, there is extremely limited tolerance for any thought of another leader returning, and this is regardless of what leadership sleight of hand arrangement is parlayed. Such is the sharp basis and heavy passions from which the stuff of resistance is made. It may have worked before with the former GS, but I sense that, considering the unparalleled temperatures at which this society boils since December 2018, such a leadership development will be challenged in the rawest ways possible.
I have warned repeatedly that this country is not held in check by notions of democracy. Democracy means nothing for us, save as an occasional convenient and convincing crutch largely mangled and misused. I caution that it is collapsible; it has no disciplined standing, no allegiance, no regard.
With the above in mind, I do not foresee-benefit of the doubt and all-how either man would be found acceptable by the most militant segment in this society. This is because of what one represented (the terrible memories, the aggrieved emotions) and what the newer one could be proxy and cover for in perpetuation of what went before. This country is in a bind, but those who say that they are of the thinking class refuse to face the stark realities embedded in the social fabric, and especially with a realistic appreciation for its racial underpinnings and undertones. I urge listening, I appeal for pragmatic understanding of the what and how is this Guyana of ours is at its naked seething core.
In closing I share this for whatever it is worth: I have no more interest in a personal presence in the affairs of this country. I wish it well and the same to all who serve it. But I would be severely irresponsible if I did not present my thinking as to where we are and what we need to do to manage. In my estimation, only a national government detail would permit us to progress beyond the ugly impasses of today and the hateful impulses they unleash.
Sincerely,
GHK Lall

---

---