Dear Editor,
I refer to Mr James McAllister’s letter to the editor, ‘If we want to challenge the PPP/C on constitutional issues the PNCR must respect its own constitution’ published in SN on October 17. I am in no position to comment on the central issue of Mr McAllister’s letter. However, I am interested in Mr McAllister’s ideas, to which he makes a passing reference in his letter, for the development of Guyana.
First of all, I would like to say that anyone who thinks that Mr McAllister, ‘Team Alexander’ or anyone under the sun can tarnish the image of the PNCR is in a state of great denial. That job was so convincingly done already that it cannot be surpassed.
Secondly, it is heartening to see the trend emerging from and being championed by some of the younger executive members within the PNCR. The recourse to principles of constitutional sovereignty, rule of law, democracy is the most uplifting and constructive discourse that I can recall from this political party.
The parallels and consistency between approaches to resolving national issues and domestic party issues, such as calls for list verification and constitutional propriety, appear to speak of a genuine respect for some core principles. Such consistency is important in that it can be a reflection of honesty, the foundation for building trust.
For too long the PNCR has buried itself in the doldrums of negative politics so even within the chaos of leadership challenges, there are great positives emerging. Hence, my concern relates not to issues of the particular situation as outlined by Mr McAllister in his letter but to the nature of “the fundamental differences” that Mr. Mc Allister says he has with Mr. Corbin on “the true purpose of the party” which is “… that the party exists to serve its supporters and the country” and hence must do the best it possibly can at elections. If I understand Mr McAllister correctly, such service to the forty plus percentage of the population that supports the PNCR includes “deliverance from the atrocities of the PPP/C.”
I suspect that, filtering through it all to get to the heart of the matter, the greatest atrocity that the PPP/C commits is to consistently win at all free and fair elections.
Perhaps I missed Mr McAllister’s explanation of how he proposes to solve this ‘forty plus percentage’ conundrum that has faced the PNCR since its existence and was as key a factor as any other in triggering that party’s leadership to descend to great depths of evil and destruction and the derailing of an entire nation.
To set an objective to deliver the PNCR supporters from the ‘atrocities’ of the PPP/C implies a correlation to subjecting the supporters of the PPP/C to the very fate that the PNCR’s supporters presently dread and endure.
Reference the Golden Rule: ‘One going to take a pointed stick to pinch a baby bird should first try it on himself to feel how it hurts.’ If we pay attention to the Golden Rule and apply it to our proposed solutions, we might tap into that quality of which Barack Obama speaks so much and those of us who participated in the various aspects of the Social Cohesion project could not help but identify: empathy.
My point, therefore, is that the problem being faced by the PNCR presently appears to be no different from the problem it encountered more than five decades ago. We appear to have gone around the same mountain a number of times and ended up at the same place that we started, creating havoc and destruction, murder and mayhem, along the way. In other words, to attempt to solve this problem using the same methods, such as elections and personalities and condemning and demonizing of the PPP/C, is to engage in self defeating activities. If we do the same things year after year, decade after decade, even with different people, we are likely to get the same unsatisfactory result or even worse results.
My second point is that Mr McAllister and other young and older politicians, in addition to the sterling service that they are currently providing to the Guyanese people − for I am under no illusions that politics in Guyana is easy work − need to demonstrate that they are capable of thinking beyond our current win-lose political stalemate.
One way that has been proposed to solve our political problem is to agitate for shared power. It is my belief that this is an attempt at a quick fix and it will not bring lasting peace and harmony to our nation. Another way, with more appeal to me, involves much personal introspection and a shift in thinking. This other way, is for us to, in a bold and fearless manner, face this ‘forty plus percentage’ dilemma squarely in the face, not necessarily as an ‘ethnic security dilemma’ but as a national and very human dilemma. Is Mr McAllister, for example, willing or able to consider extending himself beyond this institutionally and self imposed ‘forty plus percentage’ support base? Can it even be contemplated? In other words, have we, politicians included, as a nation, matured enough to move beyond the need to elevate ethnic identity and the necessity for blaming other people for our problems?
Are we ready to move from personality politics to character and issue based politics? Can we accept ourselves with our various identities and others with theirs and agree to work together and support each other? The key to being able to face others squarely in the face for rational discussion and problem solving is being able to first face the man or woman in the mirror. When the blame game ends (PPP this, PNC that), the real hard work begins: personal responsibility and accountability.
And we should not lose sight of the fact that this is perhaps the greatest achievement that Guyana as a nation accomplished during the last election. In the pain of defeat, defeat was acknowledged for the first time by the PNCR, violent protest was rejected as an option, and the self examination could then begin.
Those who yearn for “Back in the day, we congratulated ourselves for putting tens of thousands on the Square of the Revolution” (Julianne Gaul KN 6.10.08) are missing the value of this lesson and so are not able to see beyond the defeat to the window of opportunity that has opened, and so they are feeling empty and at a loss with peace. Their perspective has still narrowed to self-defending and protecting their forty plus percentage of the population.
What are the lessons that we, as a people, have learned since 1953? Are we ready for something different? I say we might be. We might be ready to at least consider something different, for we might all agree that not only is it shameful to base our politics on race − so shameful and unnatural is it to us that we cannot discuss it because we are confused by it. In continuing to base our politics on PPP and its various incarnations and PNC and its various incarnations, we are making our reality adjust to an institutional framework that no longer represents us today and has not represented us for a long time.
I am certain that I am not alone in my experience that Guyanese have no major racial problems with each other, and that we have come to terms or are coming to terms with the strength of our ethnic and religious plurality. When we seek the very best medical and legal professional, the very best lessons teacher for our children, the very best cricketer to serve our nation as well as in our day-to-day living, for the majority of us, in spite of the prejudices that we can remember quickly if necessary, race is almost never a consideration. And most Guyanese, at home and scattered abroad, will have their individual positive stories of living, studying, working and playing harmoniously with scant regard for race. Race enters the picture to be manipulated for political purposes. We therefore appear to be using an outdated and ill fitting paradigm for our politics that has not evolved with the people of this nation.
The greatest artificial divide in the nation is PPP/C vs PNCR framework. These two institutions cannot be entrusted with the task of unifying and stabilizing Guyana. This divisive framework is an extinct model that can no longer and, for that matter, never was able to foster a stable political environment. It short-circuits in an explosive manner our harmonious development of a foundation of peace, stability, maturity and equity in which all of us can participate effectively as we begin the process of building our nation and our national identity. It is only this framework, which history will show came about because of anxieties of the past that are irrelevant today, which lies at the heart of the forty plus percentage scenario. Are we sufficiently confident in our individual ethnic, religious and other identities to relinquish the need for our wailing on both sides of this wall? When we feel able to do so, we can dismantle the wall and befriend each other. Our politics will then begin to reflect the way we interact in our day-to-day activities.
We will then stand taller, breathe easier, be able to shift the focus from personalities and the need for ‘power’ to the need for national development, cohesiveness, poverty reduction and wealth creation; we might even find ourselves more able to see our own blind spots, defend each other and disengage from the need for scapegoating; we might be able to invest our time in constructive activities by relying on skill and education, reasoning and thinking rather than race and party loyalty and propaganda and the other various forms of aggression.
Please allow me to extend a Happy Diwali greeting to all Guyanese. May the light shine brightly from within each one of us and extinguish our darkness forever.
Yours faithfully,
Sandra Khan
