Dear Editor,
Two contributions caught the attention in the surge of expressions shared re social cohesion/national unity/national front thinking and efforts.
The first was that a definitive guiding public document is needed. I agree. But I say not at this stage. That is not the first step, and puts the cart before the horse. From my perspective, the push and process starts with gathering pivotal leaders in one place.
Their very first words (questions) before even sitting down must be: Do we seriously want to do this? Are we all willing to commit to getting this done and in good faith? Since everyone understands what sacrifices are involved, are we all ready to do this for the country and for all of its peoples, since this could mean the diminution of us as leaders?
Once, and only if, these thorny questions are resolved satisfactorily, then the broad rudimentary foundation would be in place to proceed to a comprehensive paper, which incorporates: 1) specific objectives; 2) contributors; 3) phases and stages; 4) mileposts; 5) measurements; 6) scrutiny and criticisms; and 7) next steps, to name a few areas. In sum, there has to be a solid meeting of the minds on a principled basis first, before pen is put to paper for a binding (or at least guiding) document.
The second significant issue tabled (more of a concern) was if there is movement, success, and the reality of cohesion and broad-based government, where is the opposition? Is there a legitimate opposition still standing? This is a valid question and, quite frankly, one to which I have no answer, given the local milieu.
Still, I submit that there has been no real meaningful opposition (other than during elections tussles) in the near fifty years of independence. Sure, there has been one in name during the period and which, from time to time, influences the streets, fields, labour, and commerce.
Further, it could be argued that every change of government here has been heavily influenced by foreign powerbrokers. Another look reveals that the official opposition(s) has been suppressed and cowed, or bought and diminished during the last five decades. Their strength and purpose always seem to grow from external roots, or at least from such urgent fertilising when it matters. Quite reasonably, the question can be – what opposition?
Now I hasten to state that the absence of a viable opposition under any arrangement is anathema to me. And while I have nothing comforting, I still can see one developing from breakaway factions; or tribal supremacists; or new ambitious blood from that wide pool of Young Turks on the sidelines. There could, also, be a church-business bloc; labour-student group; and ex-army/civil society partnering. Come to think of it, the AFC itself (and the PNC) is representative of individual breakaway fragments that grew into what it is today.
While I do not like my own answers, I still believe that some hope is embedded.
Yours faithfully,
GHK Lall
