Dear Editor,
Almost daily, and without fail, government in this country comes in for one public flaying after another at the hands of a tight group of commentators. A wider group in the streets is not reticent in ventilating emotions through similarly scorching, though more muted, positions. It could be the old government or the now not-so-new one, being on the receiving end of largely justifiable hostility and settled distrust. I, for one, have been a frequent presence in those issues that disturb and where I believe that better could have been done, should have been done. But I read something the other day that persuaded me that all of us commentators, critics, and concerned conscientious citizens have this thing all wrong; that it has been upside down all along.
This is what I read: “no representative government can long be much better or much worse than the society it represents. Purify society and you purify the government. But try to purify the government artificially and you only aggravate failure.” Others may find this self-evident, even simplistic; on the other hand, I find this to be profound, and rarely focused upon in this country. I have written before that citizens of this country deserve the government(s) that they have gotten from time to time. I still stand by that today. Yet, I seek to take this further. What is it that the segments of the populace of this country hope for and yearn for in the government that they elect to represent them? For certainty, it has been said before and repeatedly: the resentful, suspicious, and warring citizens (segments) here fervently wish for a government that represents their interest, and their interests only. If these have to be – and they have been – at the expense of all others, then so be it.
What the conflicted segments desire feverishly is, at bottom, the incompatibility of ascendancy for selves fused to a murky, occasional, uncommitted interest toward national unity for all. Leaving out the trouble involved in the narrowness and poorness of the pie, this is what voters elect governments in this country to deliver. This is what they expect and demand. And this is how, for the most part, succeeding governments in Guyana have been forced to perform, what they have been compelled to deliver. And yet, a divided degraded society having perpetually engaged and revelled in the impurity of the self-obsessed, sit back and wait for government to tend to their needs and whims too.
Stated differently, a prejudiced society (impure) chooses a government and anticipate purity and nobility from that same (any) government that emerges from such a sullied poisoned foundation. It might be undemocratic, perhaps illogical, but I submit that the world does not work this way. To be sure, no government in Guyana has ever functioned anywhere near to such idealistic unrealistic clamours. Representative government locally knows who and how and why it was elected. It also knows what is uppermost in the minds of citizens; ergo, it must now justify its existence and the loyalty manifested by commensurate loyalty of its own. And yet, there is excoriation of this that is not inclusive, of that which is bigoted, and of the other which ignores and dismisses. The very impure characteristics, the driving forces on which this society thrives are now condemned loudly and prodigiously in its government; well, at least by those on the losing side. As has been historical here, when the shoe is on the other foot, there are few, if any complaints, from that quarter. In sum, government becomes a bright reflection of society (winning society) with all of its ugliness, barbarisms, and pollutants. In this country, that distills to the infallible immovable prism of race. It is at once oceanic as well as volcanic.
The second part of the excerpt shared above posits: purify society and you purify the government. Well, how and who? Who first and when? The how becomes increasingly thorny since none of the influential sectors of society has any interest in relinquishing anything. Anything! There is no willingness towards the consensus of any compromises. The result is the result: uneven, unacceptable, and continuing undoing. And so, the denunciations – sometimes objective, other times venomous, still other times amounting to the unending frustrating futility of spitting in the wind – continue with febrile intensity and smug satisfaction. Will there ever be learning? I doubt it, since each succeeding generation mirrors and cultivates (or is cultivated by) the traditional divisions of ancestors and environment.
So where does this leave us, citizens all? The third aspect of the earlier passage cautions: But try to purify the government artificially and you aggravate failure. This has been the uninspiring record of local reality. For what we have been insisting upon, and commanding from governments operating with settled mandates is purity of purpose, purity of action and purity of result. Cannot happen, will not happen, given the origins and basis for power of one after another through the various election cycles over the decades. Guyanese are, in effect, asking government to treat the in-house children and the outside children on the same footing; to deal with friends and adversaries on the same plane, and to consider and reward them accordingly. Again, how is that going to happen? On which planet will such come to pass?
The lesson for me in this (and I would hope for many) is that once the known errors of our ways persist, then we are, let it be faced, doomed. Regardless of which government is at the helm, it is impractical, even improper, to expect otherwise. This is what society (the determining segments) want, what they project, and what is lived for fanatically. It is a recipe for the ongoing disaster of government failure. Be it yesterday, today or whenever. Change and success will be elusive, not come, unless the people commit to some semblance of the self-purification so desperately needed. Meantime, one government after another seize the opportunity to rejoice.
Yours faithfully,
GHK Lall
