Dear Editor,
Today, I offer in very simple strokes what I think could be the benefits of shared governance, with a word on the inherent dangers.
Economy: the sectors that separate or sit-down on their hands and energies (including investments and expansions) may be motivated to roll up sleeves and perform. The commitment that diminishes, or grows lukewarm, or is withheld may loosen and be more forthcoming, as in the registering of an upward spiral in numbers, profits, foreign exchange, and state revenues. The incentive-racial and political-will not disappear; it would be appealed to better, managed better, and with political and constituent principals feeling that they have a definite and meaningful stake to make things work. With universal representation present at the table, the eternal cry of token scraps and demeaning marginalization ought to be minimized to some extent as to the slicing of the pie. There are sure to be critics, naysayers, and those so poisoned as to go against the common interests. But I believe in a practical and real material sense that the bureaucratic, on the ground (in the fields), politically inspired resistances and sabotages could lessen, and measurably so. Danger: it is of those assembled parties divvying up the economic gravy primarily among close cronies and the well-placed and the well-rewarding; and with the great inconsequential multitude left to fend on its own in its perpetually sorry and impoverished state.
Race: racial intolerance, racial tension, and racial distrust will not undergo any sea change. Too widespread, too embedded, too contagious, and too enduring for any slice of such a social and earthly Nirvana. But I do believe that a Unity Government would be hard pressed NOT to attract its respective bases, and to coalesce them under a single flag of purpose; that the mythical one destiny so long bandied about, but which could move however reluctantly, however slowly-toward a concrete hope, a real authentic sense of the promising; and that Guyanese is, for once in its forlorn history, presented with the opportunity to look at each other as “us” instead of “them.” It has always been one against the other, winners versus losers, the celebrating versus the despairing. And all the handicaps and calamities that have followed from such a clear, woeful outlook, process, result, and now way of life. I challenge any and every Guyanese of any colour, any political persuasion to listen to this question (more of a statement and a position), stare hard in the mirror of rationality, practicality, commonsense, and logic, and then answer this: the way of life now lived, the quality of existence on national social scale, is not of life but rather that of a slow strangling death?
Is that not why we rush for the life-giving breath of foreign shores? Any welcoming, promising shore where despite all of our political and tribal loyalties, or perhaps because of them, there is the immediate and continuous need to take a clean resurgent breath elsewhere? Anywhere? And it has been all because of the unalterable personal attachment and blind collective surrender to a racial and political nexus that has disemboweled first, neutered next, and deboned and denuded and deracinated last. A careful look would indicate that over the years and decades, many of those very closely attached to both parties, and who were well-positioned and well-rewarded compared to the masses, made their way overseas and reenergized. This was even when their government was in power. What does that say? What does that indicate about racial allegiance when there is talk of the great Guyanese diaspora so populated with the major segments?
I have spent too long on this, but I do believe that the option of a true racial governance partnership (that leaves no group out) has never been tried, and therefore the peace of mind, the sense of belonging, the spirit of commitment to create from scratch a foundation, and then build a different, more comforting life has never, ever been promoted, or presented, or powered to a place that persuades as to it possibilities. In my inconsequential opinion, I think that alone would be priceless and serve as part of the missing cement that can not necessarily bond permanently, but hold together for a time to give a chance to get footing and bearing. And then some believing and visioning, followed finally by a degree of living. Really living. Dangers: First, in this society it has always been where the cult figure or the cast of bigoted diehards predominate and overpower thoughtful, progressive-minded moderates. The result is: No listening, no reasoning, no mending and reconciling, no moving. Second, there are those consumed by an unquenchable desire for power at any price; thus the national well is poisoned.
Public infrastructure: this is about the people behind the counter and before it. Service, serving, and servanthood. Under the winner-takes-all political system, those in power empower their own; it is embraced and exercised. Hence, there is taking care of (or treading cautiously with) their own. On the other hand, those perceived to be from the losing, and therefore, uninfluential powerless side, become fodder for either crass exploitation or routine, casual dismissal. The blatant money game that stretches its dirty tentacles starts with the lurking touts to the security screeners to the junior customer-facing clerk and up and up in one radioactive mushrooming edifice after another of the venal and the victimizing. Today, it is almost colour-blind, though still politically sensitive. A shared governance structure encompasses a vaster less racially pronounced presence officially belonging inside the building, and arguably a more vibrant public, armed with confidence and unknown (feared) reach. The corrupt or prejudiced public servant would be compelled to think and weigh the implications of previously unreported, unmanaged, and unsanctioned actions. Danger: things may change, but too slowly to register persuasively. Bureaucracies the world over are highly skilled at introducing innovative self-serving measures, covering tracks, and misleading self-absorbed political brass. Guyanese are among the best at this. Thus, there could be the same timeless sea of outstretched hand and extended document. With something from the Central Bank in between.
There are other dangers: For many too ensconced in the old failed ways, this is sure to be damned as too idealistic, if not outright dreamy, and downright impractical. But that would have been on the money if the expectation was for a full 360-degree movement. Nothing could be farther from good sense, and less grounded in practicality or reality. My own expectation is that with the right political leadership charge, and charges powerfully committed and focused on genuine racial and social change, then a 90-degree turn would be an acceptable first milestone and first inerasable indentation in the calendar. It has to be a hard period with defined doable deliverables followed by specific timetables and special goalposts, which should not be moved for expediency.
Finally, a national front/unity/shared structure should not be seen as panacea; but as a starting point from which social reengineering could be provided a footing for a more lasting constitutionally (amended) powered racial and social democratic apparatus. Guyanese have a saying: two teef duz mek gawd laff. Unsaid is that it makes the population weep. It is time to put them (the two teef) in the same cell named shared governance. Naturally, there is great risk for even greater mischief.
Yours faithfully,
GHK Lall
