Today marks the 259th anniversary of the outbreak of the 1763 Uprising, one of the region’s most remarkable revolts and a forerunner in some key respects of the Haitian Revolution. Even before Guyanese knew as much about it as they do today, they were still aware of the lack of unity between the various groups which challenged the Dutch, persuading the earlier writers to incorrectly attribute the failure of the rising largely to this factor, although it did play some role.
Be that as it may, more than two-and-a-half centuries later we are still divided, although those divisions are of an altogether different character. The discord of this new era has prompted President Irfaan Ali to place emphasis on unity and oneness, and true to form there he was four days ago in an address to the nation on the 52nd Republic anniversary holding forth on his favourite topic.
The problem is his asseverations will ring hollow if there is too much of a gap between what he claims as his objectives and what he or his government does actively to achieve them. Considering the symbolism of the occasion, it was more than unfortunate that APNU+AFC members were not invited to the flag-raising ceremony on the lawns outside Parliament on the night of February 22nd, something which automatically subverted what the President had to say and made him appear untrustworthy. The one opposition figure who was invited was Mr Lenox Shuman who currently holds the joinder seat for three small opposition parties, and as such it conveyed the appearance that the omission had been deliberate. It is true, of course, that Mr Shuman is also Deputy Speaker, which may account for the fact that he was included on the invitation list in the first instance.
Opposition Chief Whip Christopher Jones told this newspaper that he personally had gone to Parliament Building around 2 pm on the 22nd and had stayed for two hours, making enquiries about whether there were any invitations for the party. He was informed there were not. He went on to say that MPs Cathy Hughes and Nima Flue-Bess had also directed the question to the Clerk of the National Assembly, who confirmed that there were no invitations there. Checks had also been made at other locations, he said, and members would have been prepared to attend even without invitations.
When asked by this newspaper about the matter Minister of Parliamentary Affairs and Governance Gail Teixeira was quick to wash her hands of it. “I have no idea that they were not invited and only learned of that when the ceremony ended,” she responded. “I think the best person to ask is the Minister of Culture, Youth and Sport because they are the ones responsible for the flag-raising ceremony.” We reported on Friday that since Wednesday Stabroek News had been repeatedly calling Culture Minister Ramson’s phone, but had received no answer, in addition to which a request to President Ali’s press unit for a comment had also not produced a response.
If the two are embarrassed, then so they should be. If they say nothing, however, then they will just confirm the impression in the public mind that what happened was intentional.
It is true, as we reported last week, that the record of the coalition government is a long way from being unblemished. It had provided totally inadequate seating to the then PPP/C opposition for the Golden Jubilee celebration, as a consequence of which that party did not attend any other flag-raising ceremonies during the following five years. That, however, is no excuse for the government practising a policy of exclusion now, even less so when it is assuring the public that it is committed to unity. Members of the public are not fools, and something under half of them voted for APNU+AFC. As Mr Jones pointed out, flag-raisings are national occasions, not party political ones.
The incongruity of the President’s talk of One Guyana and the exclusion of the main opposition must have struck many listeners on Tuesday night. He spoke on ten themes, six of which related to such nebulous topics as attitudes, belief systems and values, and not all of which were coherently explained or logically set forth. He did say that he wanted to make it clear that both he and his government supported “constructive criticism”, and that in order to “advance” our One Guyana society, “we must have healthy debate, exchange of views and critical examination of policies, programmes, initiatives and plans.”
If this all sounded very promising it was almost immediately undermined with the words that the discussions “must not be based on selfish agenda, biasness, perception, propaganda, and feelings. Instead, they must be firmly rooted in facts and a pragmatic understanding of what is required in this rapidly changing Guyana.” In other words, by implication the government will decide if criticism is contaminated by any of the things he listed, or if it is constructive. Given its record to date, examples of what the administration has categorised as ‘constructive criticism’ are few and far between. So much for healthy debate.
Then there was ‘attitude’, where ‘One Guyana’ requires us to have a positive outlook, he said. “Chronic naysayers” it seems, “will not take us forward.” Presumably they are the ones who are incapable of ‘constructive criticism’. No doubt that is how the opposition is viewed in addition to civil society critics, although that would hardly justify leaving the former off a flag-raising invitation list.
There was too the mystifying question of character, and what makes us uniquely Guyanese. We should be known, the President said, as a people who espouse freedom, democracy and rule of law, equity and fairness. It might be remarked that while these values are eminently desirable, they would not make us “uniquely Guyanese”, in addition to which they say as much, if not more, about the political structures in place and the governments in office as they do about the people. And the records of our governments, including this one, leave a lot to be desired in one or another (or more) of these departments.
President Ali then moved on to narrative, where he told listeners that as a people, “we must write our own narrative for the future.” Exactly what this meant is by no means apparent; in the end it is posterity which writes the future narrative, no matter how hard those currently in power attempt to control the story. But then he was back to the ‘naysayers’ again. “What do the habitual naysayers gain by portraying a continuously negative narrative?” He gave a concrete example: “[W]e want sustainability and cheaper energy and on the other hand: the naysayers throw every obstacle at achieving this.” We are left to assume that any criticism of a government project will be found unacceptable, and in fact this administration has operated in a way to try and circumvent, ignore or stymie criticism of major projects no matter how rational, although it will listen to complaints at the village level when it goes out on tour.
In terms of values and belief systems, the head of state said that we cannot be part of the ‘One Guyana’ family by sowing seeds of division and divisiveness, and that among other things, we must ensure “equitable access, fairness and investment that will allow all our people to benefit”. It is not enough to say one believes in fairness, of course, it is what one does which counts. And as for equitable access, that is within the government’s remit.
The President’s observations on objectivity were another of his more enigmatic pronouncements. While saying that to be objective was to be responsible, he later said that it must be “based on clarity of thought. Objectivity requires critical analysis and not simplistic propagandist theorising to achieve a self-serving outcome.” There are those who would claim that Freedom House does not come close to meeting these criteria.
Then finally there was the exhortation to be realistic about what we can and cannot do, understand the environment in which we operate, and be humble enough to accept help in areas where we require it and say “I do not know.” The vast majority of our politicians, it must be said, have never exhibited this degree of humility. The President’s example, however, was somewhat confounding: “Being realistic,” he said, “is also understanding that the commitments we made in the manifesto are to be achieved within five years, and I assure every Guyanese those commitments we made will be honoured and delivered.”
Since the opposition was not invited to the flag-raising, why should the President believe that they would have any interest in what he had to say? Who then was he talking to? Just his own supporters and the Diplomatic Corps? If we are to break out of the disunity which has dogged us on and off since 1763 there are some small practical measures which can be taken as a tentative start. It is the small things which often cause the greatest aggravation. Can we expect the President and/or his Minister of Culture to be realistic and humble enough to offer an apology to the opposition for their exclusion, in tandem with one of the former’s declared values? If even at this most basic level the government cannot accept a constructive criticism, then everyone might as well close their ears to anything President Ali has to say on One Guyana and unity in the future. It is all just words.
