Dear Editor,
Social cohesion is the unlived, un-sacrificed for Guyanese dream that also has been its long sweat-soaked nightmare. In a place where all recognize the collective benefits of social cohesion/national unity, none ventures to step forward and raise a hand in contribution; not anyone, not anywhere, and not at any time. It is simply asking too much.
From time to time, social cohesion has been resurrected (different terms used) to enjoy the sparkle of a bright new day, the promise of a glowing future. Then it fades into the usual slow, but inevitable death. That is, until the next political cycle, when it could be resurrected (again) and used (again) as a combination Trojan Horse and red herring.
Why does social cohesion, with all its admitted national pluses, wither and die on the vine every time? Here is a caustic look; I warn that many might find it embarrassing, as it points to them.
Fifty years of independence has resulted in two, and only two, changes of government. The long years of ruling by one political group, and the corresponding unending years in the political wilderness by the other, educate supporters and sycophants of the lush rewards associated with winning. At the same time, losers become more aware of how much is being missed. Normally, this would create regular anger. When the history of electoral realities is recalled, then matters, rightly or wrongly, assume all the elements of an unforgiving visceral antagonism. There is no inclination to coalesce with a nemesis.
Next, matters are not helped by the limited nature of the economic pie. This exacerbates the desires and tensions to win, and win at all costs. And now here is the single solitary objective to all of this: keep all of that said pie for self and circle. This has been the way, and incontrovertibly so, where the major parties have embraced and trapped and consumed all of the economic pie for their own. And because it is limited, even with the best of intentions, there is not much of anything of substance to offer the losing side. The jobs, scholarships, contracts, schemes, community benefits, and so on and so forth are all reserved (have to be) for friends, family, and fellow travellers. Put differently for loyalists, whether proven and known, or pretended but still known. As an aside, I assert that the promised oil bonanza, while enriching the pie, could very likely be another sharp bone of contention that makes the stakes higher, and the probability of continued dissension greater. Even mono-cultural societies have struggled with dealing with the wealth. Why not here, too, since there is dogged resistance to learning and adapting?
Meanwhile, as this talk of social cohesion takes the airwaves, winners pause and by different degrees express alarm, disbelief, and anger. Say what? But then they, too, heard that term in some different incarnation at some other time, and they relax. Nothing doing! Nothing is going to come out of this. They are right, for in time the rhetoric slows and then disappears altogether; it is a victim of both the bruising lacerating political turbulence and the continuing cultivated selfishness of wanting the whole pot on all sides. When it should have been sensibly (and practically) one for all and all for one, there is only the poignancy of all for we. No Guyanese should have any difficulty defining who the ‘we’ have been either yesterday, or in all the difficult yesterdays of before.
Those observing closely, be they local or foreign, can appreciate that the national nakedness is total and dreadful. On every occasion, every pivotal opportunity, that demanded a big heart, little spirit and less guts were displayed. There was also no honesty, as all the chatter about bringing together and unity was just that, chatter. I submit that it cannot be otherwise, in view of the pragmatic political realities, and embedded memories stoked by simmering history. I did hope that it would be otherwise this time, given the man at the helm, but realpolitik is ascendant. I think President Granger has an interest in becoming a change agent, and the vision to be unprecedented. Though I harbour doubts about his will, especially given realpolitik demands.
Separately, anyone who truly believes in, and seeks to encourage social cohesion walks a lonely road; likeminded commuters are very scarce. In fact knowing eyes and older heads behold (to them) a simpleminded idealist, if not an outright simpleton. They shake their heads in pity and with some suspicion too.
It is because related postures, actions, and words that refuse to hew to any coloration or line threaten vested racial interest, and undermine what has always been the status quo across the political board. It exposes many for who and what they are: immovable tribalists, swingers with the political wind, and secret gold-diggers; in the case of the latter two groups, they do anything to get on the gravy train.
For all of the aforementioned reasons and more, I believe that social cohesion (or however called) in some acceptable form and process is unreachable for probably the next hundred years. If I were still a betting man, I would put money down on this. The belief is strengthened when my thinking is that this country is about more than political hostility and political bigotry; it is about the reciprocal political hatreds that fill and powers the always bubbling cauldron.
Ironically, therein reside the toxins that fuse political division and the political divisors into one unholy whole. At bottom, the divided blocs are really inseparable; each side is an indistinguishable mirror image of the other side. And it is what imprisons this entire society eternally. Moreover, the Guyanese electorate is part of the problem; individually and collectively, it is a major contributor through self-inflicted blindness. It is why newcomers and different thinkers are detested. I used to feel sorry for the Guyanese public; that has diminished considerably. It has to live in the burning bed that it keeps remaking.
Editor, some may recoil at the relentless pessimism incorporated in this line of thinking, and writing; others will continue the charade of pretence that misleads none. But it is time that somebody calls things for what they are, and how they really are. There should be not a scintilla of doubt remaining as to who are responsible.
Yours faithfully,
GHK Lall
