Dear Editor,
Mr Frederick Kissoon appears to expect an answer to his missive captioned, ‘Not an impressive interview for a possible presidential candidate’ (SN, March 3). I oblige.
It is sharp of Mr Kissoon to associate my earlier ruminations in ‘The Chosen One’ carried in SN (January 31) with a specific name. Whereas Mr Kissoon believes in the bludgeon and broadside, I believe in a more nuanced approach. This is designed to afford subjects courtesy and dignity, and to save face, if necessary.
Although I did not see the programme, I will rely on the main points and synopsis, as presented, to formulate my response.
I looked carefully at the synopsis; I am surprised and disappointed that a politician and practitioner of this longevity and stature could have stepped on these landmines, even as he was pulling pins from grenades served up with the compliments of Mr Ram. Surprised that the interviewee exhibited such an apparent lack of political dexterity and sophistication; and disappointed, that philosophically, the contenders are so inseparable in outlook and postures. It is the equivalent of one size fits all.
If the records support Mr Kissoon’s report, then there is nothing on which I find compatibility with the interviewee, be it about the Ombudsman or spooks or presidential communication standards. None of this should come as a surprise.
Nevertheless, if I were to be encouraged to enter into a defence for the Speaker, it would be that he is calibrating his responses to synchronize with the established choir, and that he seeks no separation through distinction. In other words, he does not wish to advance so far (the sin of individualism) ahead of the pack that he presents an unerring target to others, whether they are behind, at the side, or on the inside. Also, it is that the prize is so close, it would be pointless, counterintuitive, and counterproductive to tamper with the administrative and hierarchical machinery. The interviewee is content with being the faithful soldier, the trusted lieutenant; hence his responses are on the money, safe, and bankable.
At this point, I take the opportunity to remind Mr Kissoon that my original letter on this subject represented my belief as to which frontrunner would emerge triumphant. I did say that “None of this should be construed as a seal for fitness for office.” Further, I inferred, “As to how he handles power afterwards, well, that is another story altogether in a continuing tragedy.” I think that the interview confirmed my inference that current tragedies could continue uninterrupted.
Finally, if the interviewee were to furnish answers that aligned with expectations reflective of the truly democratic, the constitutionally felicitous, and the legally sublime, then Guyana could be a beautiful place – or at least less controversial. I do not know about Mr Kissoon, but if such were the responses and led to a transformed Guyana, then I would have to take up basket-weaving and knitting; maybe both.
Yours faithfully,
GHK Lall
