Dear Editor,
Elections were held in Guyana on May 11 − 17 days ago − and the results were declared on May 16 − 12 days ago. The Presidential Inauguration was set for May 26 − Independence Day. For the organizers to conceive, plan and execute the Inaugural event in that time frame was next to impossible. In hindsight, maybe they should not have pushed for it. But they did.
I firmly believe that criticism is warranted where it’s due. But it seems that most people who are heaping negativity on the concept, artiste selection and other processes at the event are comparing it with other Inaugurals around the world, particularly the USA. Those folks have a blueprint, and it’s done the same way time after time and has been repeated endlessly over the decades. The planners of the Guyana Inaugural event had less than two weeks and were flying blind.
Arguably, to some it may have seemed like a total disaster. It appears that the critical commentary is coming from three places: a) people who were on the inside looking out and privy to the mechanics of the day; b) inveterate critics, who need to criticize something for their own self-fulfilment; and c) those genuinely upset by what was indeed a less than stellar representation of our country.
Sure there were problems, ranging from ill-chosen music to poorly attired and ill-prepared MC’s (the skunk-wearing fellow needs to step into the 21st century), to some organizational confusion. But juxtapose those negatives with the thousands who went to the Stadium to enjoy a free presentation and to celebrate Independence Day for the first time in over two decades, and maybe the picture could be a little less skewed.
I am a firm believer in ‘constructive’ criticism. But fair is fair, and a little perspective goes a long way.
Yours faithfully,
Louis London
