Today has been designated a National Day of Fasting and Prayers. According to a release from the Department of Public Information the date has been chosen because of the confluence of three significant religious observances: Ramadan (Muslims), Chaitra Navratri (Hindus) and Lent (Christians). Christianity, of course, comprises a number of denominations, not all of which practise fasting or even observe Lent. There is no mention either of the very small faiths here, such as the Baha’is, the Rastafarians or even the Buddhists, for example. Be that as it may, undoubtedly President Irfaan Ali would say that all would be welcome, no matter what their religious convictions.
The day is to culminate with an interfaith gathering at the National Park for prayer, songs and reflections. Similar observances are to be held in other parts of the country as well.
And if citizens are wondering what the purpose of all this is, it was explained that President Ali was calling on religious organisations to unite under the banner of ‘One Guyana’. The DPI reported him as indicating that this represented an opportunity for religious bodies and people from all belief systems to join together to promote the spirit of togetherness. “I would like all of us to fast together, pray together, and stay together as ‘One Guyana,’” he was quoted as saying.
He further stated that “the ‘One Guyana’ vision springs from our rich multicultural heritage and the need to ensure that our diversity remains a source of strength and not an instrument of division and disaffection.” To this the DPI added that the ‘One Guyana’ initiative was intended to make sure that every citizen was accorded a dignified existence with due respect for their rights and equality before the law.
No one would have any quarrel with the President’s day of fasting and prayer, or with a coming together of the different faiths in the National Park for prayer, songs and reflections. It is just that the ‘One Guyana’ ideal, whatever precisely the head of state means by it, is not going to be achieved by this route if it is intended to heal our divisions in some sense. Those divisions are not reflected in the religious sphere; by and large the country has not done too badly in that department in so far as a variety of faiths co-exist fairly amicably within our borders.
They do so firstly because the framework in which they function is a secular one; there is no state religion. They do on occasion act as moral voices in relation to secular matters and in earlier times have even spoken out on political issues, but with some exceptions they have tended to operate within their own domain in more recent times. This has not stopped the politicians from time to time trying to co-opt one or another religious sector into giving them support in the hope that they would bring their congregations along with them. This was particularly so in Burnham’s day because Hindus in particular, were Indian. Somewhat ironically, however, it was the Christian leaders, representing congregations where Africans were in the majority who presented him with his greatest challenge.
The various faiths are not always of one voice where social and especially sexual mores are concerned, and in recent years some have expressed their opposition to the decriminalisation of homosexuality, to cite a prime example, on ethical grounds. In this case it is a conflict between what some religions, or segments of them, regard as an absolute moral principle, and the obligations of the state to ensure its legislation is in consonance with human rights law. In a secular state it is human rights laws which should take precedence. As far as this is concerned, President Ali’s ‘One Guyana’ concept has not attained the level of every citizen being “accorded a dignified existence with due respect for their rights and equality before the law.”
Of course no amount of communal praying and fasting will change the minds of those who are opposed to such a reform on religious grounds; but then one faith or another has had to abide by a number of secular statutes in such areas as marriage, divorce and abortion, to which they do not subscribe. It is the price of co-existing in a multi-faith society which nevertheless guarantees freedom of religion.
The second thing which has allowed for comparatively easy relations between our various faiths is our religious holidays, which over a period of more than half a century have become entrenched in the pattern of our existence. In several cases they are participated in by all groups, even although non-believers will seize on the secular aspects of such festivals for the purposes of celebration. But for all of that divisions remain in the society which find their principal expression in the political field. These require practical political solutions, not religious ones.
The one area where President Ali could ask the different faiths for practical assistance in his ‘One Guyana’ project would be where racism is concerned. That topic in a multi-racial society where relations are currently a good deal less than harmonious comes well within the ambit of morality. If the head of state asked all the religious leaders in the National Park tonight to play a part in talking to their congregations about the problem, and in working with leaders of a different faith in their area to encourage multi-racial encounters and discussions, he might make some progress.
Exactly how much impact ordinary people addressing themselves to the problem of racism can have on their politicians is perhaps doubtful, although over time they may have some influence. And the politicians are the key to President Ali’s ‘One Guyana’ dream, however he conceives of it. While he has done a lot of talking, he and his government have done little to convey to Guyanese the idea that they are really serious about it.
Prayer and fasting will not solve the Gecom issue; it will not stop his parliamentarians and ministers from vulgar behaviour; it will not persuade him from dismissing professionals like Dr Vincent Adams from critical posts, or appointing rank political operatives such as Dr Prem Misir to positions requiring technical expertise. It will not stop his ministers from verbally attacking critics of projects on personal grounds, rather than looking at the substance of what they have to say; it will not create mechanisms for establishing local think tanks comprising people with skills from outside the charmed circle of his party to have an input into economic, environmental, energy and other solutions; and it will not set up a framework for inclusiveness and a situation where everyone has “equality before the law’.
There are a host of other things prayer and fasting on their own will not do if the President’s dream has any hope of becoming reality, and he is not to be written off as a fantasist. The bottom line is that One Guyana cannot be created with One Voice.
