Dear Editor,
Stabroek News of Saturday, May 13, 2017 carried a story headlined ‘Works to complete new arch continue without disrupting traffic.’ In the body of the story the arch is described as “the new independence arch.” If this is truly an independence arch, why is the presidential emblem perched atop the arch and not the national emblem as is the case with the arch at Agricola?
The arch at Brickdam was never in dispute; it has long been accepted as the independence arch. It is the real McCoy! By perching the presidential emblem atop the arch at Cummings Lodge Guyanese can only surmise that this appears to be a presidential rather than an independence arch. Moreover, ANSA McAl must have gotten permission from the President himself to install the Cacique Crown, part of the presidential emblem, at the top of the arch and not the national emblem as should be.
The Cacique Crown is indeed a national symbol and is deeply respected by all, but at the same time, it is emblematic of the Ministry of the Presidency, and therefore care must be taken about where it is publicly placed lest it generate political sensitivities if not controversy, as is already the case. ANSA McAl should take care that in its exuberance to please the Granger administration its actions are not construed as playing politics and pandering to the idiosyncrasies of a failing government.
At the same time, the government must be consistent and sensitive as regards the public placement of national symbols. This is a national, not a party issue. It is rather paradoxical to use the presidential emblem, albeit that emblem is representative of the Amerindian community, because at the time of independence Guyana was not a republic and therefore did not have a president.
Further, the explanation offered by the President with respect to the symbolism of the arch should have taken into account the struggle to bring together in November of 1825, the owners of six estates starting from Cuming’s Lodge on the East Coast, through Georgetown to Rome on the East Bank, to create the Lamaha Canal, which would connect and benefit all six estates and bring for the first time a reliable flow of fresh water all the way to the city, a matter of great historical significance.
Thus, the Lamaha Canal on which many today depend as a source of potable water had its beginnings in a small canal aback of Cuming’s Lodge known as Ward’s Trench. The location of the three arches: one at Agricola, part of the front lands of Rome on the East Bank, the other at Vlissengen road and Brickdam, and now this new one at Cumming’s Lodge laid down the historical markers of what eventually became the City of Georgetown.
Incidentally, it was never made known to the public who recommends the locations for arches and other historical monuments; whether it is done by an inter-agency body comprising suitably qualified persons from various government agencies and departments and the private sector, or exclusively by the Ministry of the Presidency. If an ad hoc inter-agency body does not exist to execute this mandate, then it is certainly the way to go. And public invitations should be issued to Guyanese at home and abroad to submit designs, suggestions, etc. The chaos and unnecessary inconvenience suffered by the travelling public on the East Coast highway at the time when the arch was being mounted was a clear sign that no such a body existed.
While, symbols are important from a military perspective and for nation building, in the final analysis, it is a robust economy and a vibrant democracy that is needed to lift the Guyanese people, including the Amerindian communities out of poverty. In other words, we can’t eat arches nor can arches help revitalize the economy. In this regard, the government continues to be woefully lacking as we approach the 51st anniversary of our country’s independence.
Finally, according to the state-owned media, the President in commissioning the arch, said very little about its significance for Guyana’s independence, thus the question remains: is this really an independence arch?
Yours faithfully,
Clement J Rohee
