Dear Editor,
His Excellency has gone out on a far and unfamiliar limb in this country. Mr. David Granger has given the comfort of his political group and people honouring the results of elections, as they are finalized and made official. I share several thoughts on this pronouncement, which is laudable, and which is best fulfilled through the reality of events to come.
First, now that the president taken this momentous step, it would be most appropriate and most welcoming, if his counterpart and associated group could commit to the same standard of adherence. That by itself from across the political spectrum would be representative of the unprecedented; and, if maintained come what may (that is the crucial test), of a new and unknown political maturity, rarely, if not never seen in this tormented land. Instead of the shrill and piercing, I urge that there be the thrill and rejoicing of what we can be as a people, a real nation imbued with the pride and dignity so long absent in our political and social cultures. I urge a reciprocal spoken gesture of similar commitment to move forward and work on moving together. In this manner, the endless bickering could be curtailed, and a platform for revived and renewed political engagement given the space to find its feet.
Second, I state this upfront and without apology: perhaps because I have been so long on the outside among outsiders that I have been able to glean many and varied shades of thinking, the nuanced ways in which matters are approached, and the adjustments built-in or held in reserve along the journey. This has assisted immensely, I daresay, to look at events and environment differently, even radically so, from that which is so much an immovable and incorrigible aspect of Guyanese thinking and ways of doing things. I offer this as relevant, because immediate upon the Gecom announcement, there was that joint ambassadorial communique. Scathing and cautioning it was; and no matter how examined there was also something akin to the threatening. I thought it was a palpable case of diplomatic overreach.
Third, and as if in response, and determined not to be outflanked himself, President Granger took a road not traveled in this country: it was through a preemptive public indication of willingness to concede, should circumstances make such necessary. None of the traditional threats raging; simply a promise. As is customary from leaders all over when confronted with what amounted to an ultimatum of sorts, he refused to be drawn into a lash for a lash. Other places at other times have parted company with those foreign presences bold enough to tell the error of domestic travails. Persona non grata, is the term of art.
Fourth, I thought I heard, and I sensed, what amounts to a bone for a bone, and one on which everybody gets to peer at suspiciously first, and then chew on diligently later. In other words, the president is tendering that he: a) desires fervently to get this business right; b) puts a palatable election on the table; and c) commits from this predawn hour to stand by whatever chips come his way and however they fall. To go still further, I think the president is saying do not pressure to participate and deliver something that nobody (repeat nobody) would accept; and which, in good conscience, is unacceptable, if not betrayal. And through such, to introduce a return to and renewal of the cycle of acute inadequacy that permeates.
Fifth, my senses have not abandoned me altogether; I am merely exploring beyond the crippling, customary norm. I see this as the first signal in a slow, gathering movement to something. I am still trying to figure out what it could be, as I watch guardedly for more developments of the same temperature and with a key ingredient that must be forthcoming: in-kind responding and repositioning. The daily oil arrivals make this a now indisputable condition of carving out a different dividend for the peoples of this country.
Sixth, I think that the president placed a card of consequence on the table of engagement. I think it matters. I think if we take out the fangs and talons from our conversations and visions, then another incomparable step would have been taken or, at least, essayed. Up until this time, it has been a loser’s game powered by the numerous insecurities embedded in a loser’s mentality. Nobody wins; nobody did win anything.
Seventh, having said all this, I submit that the pudding will be in the pragmatism appreciated by and followed by supporters from wherever they hail. They have been the biggest losers in a massively populated losers paradise. Whatever comes from the opposition would not be selling out, but simply contributing to assuring surviving all around.
My final thought is this: now if there could be leaning forward from the opposition to read the leaves, and offer an equivalent gesture of its own, then there is cause for optimism. This would be the early formation of what could be a legacy of still unfathomable proportions delivered to this nation.
Yours faithfully,
GHK Lall
