Dear Editor,
The polarization of politics in Guyana did not prevent the holding of free and fair elections. However, the absence of political tension during or after elections in the form of street protests should not be interpreted as a climate of political stability. At the same time, the
maintenance of political stability can easily be jeopardized if sustained efforts and hard work are not done to maintain the country’s macroeconomic fundamentals, ensure good governance, growth in the economy, end corruption, creation of job opportunities, provision of goods and services as well as the provision of a living wage for the Guyanese working people. In polarized societies such as ours, the judiciary is called upon to play a critical role, it must rise and stand above the political fray and not be perceived to be in concubinage with, nor contaminated by a polarized environment and establishment. If at any time, the judiciary were to be perceived as captive of a polarized environment, that would send a strong signal indicating that Guyana has embarked on the road to being a failed state, which as matters stand, is certainly not the case. With the introduction by the colonial powers of social structures of societies based on tribes, slavery, indentureship, ethnicity and religion, historical experience has shown that polarization and marginalization can give birth to political and social forces who champion extremist, and sometimes adventurist positions that can disrupt the peace and good order in society.
It is the echo-chamber that stirs and promotes polarization, political, ethnic or otherwise. The echo chamber is largely responsible for providing a comfort level for those who hold that their view or action is the correct way and any other view or action is not. Refusing to acknowledge what each other stand for is to engage in a dialogue of the deaf. The process degenerates with the introduction of the racial and ethnic factor at every bend of the river. In the recent budget debate the government projected the country’s developmental trajectory whilst the opposition rejected outright the 2021 budget measures. Under these conditions, the culture of the blame game become a convenient political tool. At the same time, little or no attention is paid to the possibility that, with free and fair elections, and with the prospects for change, the policies of a political party may very well have a shelf life of just five years.
The loss of political power allegedly due to polarization in voting patterns and the perceived decrease in the allocation of resources can result in increased struggle by those who, in a democracy, feel a sense of social exclusion and deprivation. In a reconstituted GECOM there are good prospects for constructive engagement between government and opposition. At the Parliamentary level, between 1992 and 2018 approximately 436 Bills and Motions were passed without division in the National Assembly. It seems as though for now, Parliament and GECOM are the only two institutions where good prospects exist to address the challenge of polarization not only from an institutional perspective but for national advancement. Bipartisan cooperation by government and opposition at these two levels can be tested and hopefully, prove to be successful in more than a hundred ways for the good of our country and people.
Yours faithfully,
Clement J. Rohee
