Dear Editor,
There is a commodity very much lacking in Guyana. The absence of this commodity – a quality, really – permeates individuals, races, and officialdom. It is so widespread, so missing, that it is, perhaps, the only thing on which a very large cross section of Guyanese can agree. This commodity is embodied in a single word – trust.
Webster’s New World Dictionary defines trust as “the firm belief or confidence in the honesty, integrity, reliability, justice, etc of another person or thing.” Observing life in Guyana, it has been very difficult to locate this belief or confidence. Starting at the top, the government does not trust the opposition, and the opposition does not trust the government. Also, the majority of the people at one time or another, and over multiple issues, do not trust both. Further, too many individuals from the larger ethnicities do not harbour a deep trust in the parties that they support and for which they vote.
As the clamour begins, I take a few positions. The first is that voting for does not translate to trusting in. From a voter’s perch, and reduced to elemental terms, this has amounted to: 1) lesser evil; 2) race loyalty and identification; 3) one man’s solution is another’s problem; 4) your problems were once my problems; and 5) reluctance to risk trusting alternatives. In all of this, there is no trust, but a resigned pragmatism that resonates with history, and all its ricochets into violence, corruption, failure, suppression, the colour question, and the like. There is the knowledge of all of this and there is little trust, whether upwards or sideways.
More than a few have admitted freely that they lack trust in the government, but that they will-and must stick to the status quo. It has come down to, “can’t put dem ada maan bak”; and “doan trus dem man dis, but no ada chice”; and “deh baad, but dis is weh we deh.” This is not from fence-sitters or the newly converted, but from committed and long-standing government supporters. Unsurprisingly, opposition supporters have expressed sheer disgust (“deh only out fuh demself”) and a near absolute lack of trust (“all ah dem is teef” and “deh aint gat nuthin fuh we kin ah people”) in those who lead.
In addition, this lack of trust has tunnelled its way from politicians into institutions and routines in varying ways. Examples are now offered to substantiate.
The government does not trust the army, as evidenced in sensitive security operations; one segment of society does not trust official police reports involving shooting deaths; and another has very limited (if any) trust in the willingness of the same force to respond to emergencies. Somewhere in the middle of this lack of trust lies the fate of individual families, specific communities, and society at large. This can be effectively extended from the political and security sectors to private commerce and public service. Last, but not least, this lack of trust imbues at ever increasing levels, exchanges – whether tangible or intangible – that comprise aggregate societal interactions. Be it the registration of a vehicle, or the registering of an idea, or the recording of a transport. Nationally, a lack of trust means that there are no shared beliefs; no enduring focus; no genuine commitment; and no future promised.
If this is the stark reality, the challenge is how to begin to develop, earn, and accumulate trust. I can only share what has worked for me at the individual, group, legal, and corporate levels. It is: be honest, listen, respect others, admit mistakes, let your word be your bond, and your handshake a halo. When consistently practised, this works in families, neighbourhoods, friendships, and business. It is very simple; maybe too simple. All I know is that this has worked for me, and it is what I offer. Still, there are some in Guyana who have lived this way, and know that it does make a difference.
Yours faithfully,
GHK Lall
