Dear Editor,
This year Guyana celebrates its 50th anniversary since attaining political independence in 1966. The APNU+AFC coalition government announced that it plans to honour (with national awards) individuals and organizations that played a significant role in the struggle for our freedom and or contributed to national development. (Only a few independence freedom fighters are still around and they should be recognized.) The government can look to the model used in other countries in selecting awardees that will not result in charges of bias as took place last year May after the coalition assumed power.
I just returned from a visit to India where I was privileged to witness the Republic Day parade last month and the announcement by the President’s office of the names of national civilian awardees. (India gives out honours for Republic instead of Independence Day.) Individuals and organizations were recognized for dedicated service to the nation or their communities. India, like other nations, give out national honours in recognition of distinguished contribution or exceptional service in various spheres of activity including science, arts, humanities, education, literature, sports, journalism (including writings on the Indian diaspora), medicine, social service, public affairs, entertainment, promotion of India abroad, service to the diaspora, etc. Some foreigners are also recognized with national awards who contribute in various ways to India or the diaspora. In India, awardees are given a certificate and a medal.
In India, the awardees tend to reflect the face of the nation in terms of the geographic and ethnic composition of the population and in terms of party affiliation. What takes place in India is very much the opposite of what took place last year in Guyana where it was charged that the APNU+AFC coalition gave out national honours primarily to its supporters. Last year’s blunder should be avoided.
In India, as in the US, Canada, UK, Mexico, etc, the ruling party does not restrict national honours primarily to its supporters. Mostly deserving individuals have been honoured. As happened under the PPP and PNC, and under APNU+AFC last May, highly deserving individuals were left out in order to favour party supporters.
The PPP post-Jagan recognized friends and financial contributors; one could not figure out what some of the awardees did other than being friends of the party leadership. Those who contributed to the freedom movement or liberation movement (including from the diaspora) were not duly recognized.
Last year, people hardly knew some of the coalition awardees; several of them hardly did anything noteworthy or of distinction that benefited the nation or any community or the diaspora. Some were clearly honoured because of the role they played in bringing about the electoral victory of the coalition.
There must not be a repeat of last year’s politically partisan selections or what occurred in previous years under the PPP. A committee of distinguished politically non-partisan individuals reflecting the ethnic composition of the population should be appointed and tasked with choosing national awardees. Such a committee should be jointly selected by the coalition and opposition and composed primarily of civic (non-political) members. The committee, in turn, should announce invitations for public nominations with criteria. After vetting the nominations, the committee can make its recommendations of honours (that reflect the face of the nation and the diaspora) to the government.
Unless there is a transparent non-partisan selection of national awardees, the credibility and integrity of the ruling coalition will be undermined, and people will once again accuse the APNU+AFC regime of political and ethnic bias in its awardee selections.
Yours faithfully,
Vishnu Bisram
