Dear Editor,

Allow me, as someone who has had the privilege to live in Guyana for three and half years where I met and worked with the most amazing people who deeply care for their country, to respond to the difference in opinion on the issue of “talking to the criminals”.

The Stabroek News reports on 14 February: “The government has no intention of engaging criminals in any dialogue and will continue to take an aggressive approach to those hiding out in the East Coast backlands.” Dr Luncheon is quoted as saying: “We have to be resolute and reject this position. We are unprepared to engage in any discourse with these criminals.” On the other hand, “Jesuit priest Fr Malcolm Rodrigues had put forward a proposal for the political directorate to engage in dialogue with the criminals or domestic terrorists to get to the root cause of why they were engaging in criminal activities.”

The situation is complex, but the analysis of the reactions is not so difficult. You can either get to the root causes through dialogue (Rodrigues) or you can continue to deal with symptoms in the belief that, since your opponents have no legitimate causes for their actions, it’s only a question of time before you will flush them out and rid society of these (GoG). I’m sure that ordinary Guyanese, in their wisdom, know already which approach would bring about the much needed results.

There was a time in South Africa when the African National Congress was shut out from dialogue and opted for an armed struggle. They said: “Amandla awethu! Power to the people!

The only thing we will talk about is the transfer of power.” And the National Party, fooling themselves that they were in complete control, said of Mandela and the ANC: “We don’t talk with a convicted criminal and terrorists.” Imagine what would have happened if both sides had stuck to their guns. Thank God they for civil society and political leaders such as Bishop Tutu, Mandela, Ramaphosa , De Klerk and Meyer who were visionaries and moved their supporters from victimhood to victorhood for the sake of the whole country. And thank God for ordinary South Africans that refused to let the country slide into chaos.

They knew, like Gandhi, that an eye for an eye would leave everybody blind.

In Mali in the early 90s, the President called for citizens to help him end the civil war. Within two years there was peace, because of locally initiated peace conferences that were held in all the towns and cities, facilitated by ordinary Mali citizens. You can read this story and other examples of public participation in peace processes at http://www.c-r.org/our-work/accord/public-participation/contents.php.

Although the situations in South Africa and Mali cannot be compared with Guyana, there is a generic lesson in any conflict that is relevant for Guyana: Refusal to talk = delaying the talks = exacerbating the suffering. All violent conflicts either end in mutual destruction, or at a table, where they should have been prevented in the first place. Ask the Kenyans.

Obama knows this: “my opponent will not be able to say that