Dear Editor,

Were I a betting woman Mr Freddie Kissoon would have won the bet that his column would have called me to account for the position I took in opting to remain silent at the appointed time of his choosing, when he vociferously argued against the policy of the Ethnic Relations Commission (ERC) to exclude the media from its stakeholders’ meeting (‘Matutinal waves of pessimism’ KN, June 23).

He is correct in reporting that I did not participate in what was described by Bishop Edghill, the Chairman of the proceedings, as a ruckus created by Mr Kissoon in trying to persuade the ERC to change its policy on the spot of excluding the media from the deliberations at their stakeholders’ meetings. According to Bishop Edghill, that was not the first time Mr Kissoon had attempted to get the ERC to change this policy.

Let me first of all state that I recognise Mr Kissoon’s right to call me to book to explain my actions, and I gladly do so now. Secondly, I would like to state that I took the position to stay out of the ruckus knowing full well that I would be called to book publicly on the matter by Mr Kissoon, especially since Mr Everall Franklyn, the only other opposition Member of Parliament present at the session, had entered the fracas with Mr Kissoon while I did not.

Contrary to many a viewpoint on the positions I take, it is my belief that there is no need for me to play to the gallery. My focus, therefore, has not been on reaching the converted, but rather reaching the large block of disillusioned Guyanese who are tired with the same old exhibition of anger and frustration that changes nothing.

In this regard, had I allowed Mr Kissoon to draw me out to participate in the ruckus he had created, I would have lost the opportunity to change over some hearts and minds, joined him in his failure to effect change in the policy of the ERC, as well as reinforce the regrettable belittling perception of politicians that is growing in our society.

The option I chose instead was to make this point in my presentation, which I discussed with the Commissioners before leaving the session due to an urgent call. I proposed that perhaps the ERC would consider utilising the opportunity presented by the presence of the stakeholders to canvas their views on the policy which Bishop Edghill said was devised with them in mind. I posited that, one way or the other, it would either give legitimacy to the ERC’s policy by having the stakeholders endorse it, or enlighten the ERC about the irrelevance of their policy. This approach, I believe, allowed for a mature (perhaps even ‘face-saving’) solution as distinct from the confrontational one presented by Mr Kissoon. However, I hoped nonetheless to transmit the message that my style, though not that of Mr Kissoon, would be respected in some quarters of the society that had grown wary of venting one’s spleen with no commensurate result or benefit.

Further, I made the point that, in a room filled with several dozen stakeholders, the political parties’ representatives were in the minority, numbering no more than five. My approach, therefore, sought to put the onus on the civil society stakeholders to advocate the change in the ERC’s policy if they indeed agreed with Mr Kissoon’s position. This approach, I believe, provides the space that civil society claims it requires and which in its view the political forces in the country occupy exclusively.

Yours faithfully,
Sheila Holder