Dear Editor,
Recently, President Irfaan Ali lamented in an interview that he had reached out “humbly” on two occasions to Mr. Aubrey Norton, the Leader of the Opposition (LOO) in an effort to shake the latter’s hand, and his gesture had been rebuffed. It was also reported that in another recent encounter while in Queens, New York, Mr. Norton had repeated his stated position that he will not shake the hands of his oppressors. Unfortunate, to say the least, especially as this standoff has existed for more than a year now.
In a previous life, while in the Ministry of Foreign Affairs as the Director of the Department of Legal Affairs and International Organisations, my portfolio included the United Nations and its related institutions such as UNEP, and specifically the process leading up to the 1992 UNCED in Rio. Mr. Norton at that time had lead responsibility for the Environment in the Ministry; himself along with people like Lance Carberry on Natural Resources and the late Dr. Walter Chin on Health, made up Guyana’s multi-talented negotiating team. My former colleague Aubrey proved to be an astute and skilled negotiator, shuttling between UNEP in Nairobi, the UN in New York and other exotic capitals, leading initiatives within CARICOM and forging consensus among wider groupings of the UN membership.
Alas, it would seem that, having been out of the game for some considerable time, the Leader of the Opposition might need to burnish his negotiating skills and regain some of his earlier ability to be creative and seek compromise solutions for the greater good. By holding to his rigid position of not shaking hands with his oppressors, he has in fact painted himself into a corner, not unlike the behavioural scenario of a prisoner’s dilemma, where self-interest often negates an optimal outcome for all parties.
As it is, while this narrative plays well with the party political base, the only palatable option at present is that the sought-after handshake will only occur if in the estimation of the LOO, there is an abatement of the conditions of the perceived oppression. If this is taken to its logical conclusion, then for the handshake to ever occur – indeed it could serve as a rallying cry for the party faithful leading up to Election 2025 – this mantra would have to be precipitously abandoned, with all the egg on one’s face that that would bring.
What then would be the face-saving compromise that Mr. Norton could forge, to effectively become part of the governance arrangements in this dear land of ours, dig us out of this wasteland of inertia and invective and placate the emotions of the race-based electorate? Something has to give, some policy shift has to occur – or be deemed to have occurred – from the Government side, to create the appearance (or illusion?) that opposition supporters are no longer being oppressed, as alleged. But like the proverbial chicken and egg, in order to engender such a seismic shift, some contact, some dialogue, some compromise has to be struck between the two sides, to move the process forward.
But without the elusive handshake, would this shift be at all possible? Very recently, an offer was made by a third-party to play a role in bringing the parties together and encouraging dialogue. Negotiation theory, as well as practice, teaches that intervention by a third-party is not feasible unless it is at the request or with the consent of the parties. Critical to the success of the role of facilitator/mediator, however well-intentioned it may be, is that the intervenor cannot appear to be imposing itself on the process, as a lack of acceptance by either party could cause the effort to be stillborn. One conclusion might be that the parties are incapable of finding homegrown solutions to their problems.
Still, the short answer to the question posed is yes. While the bluster and rhetoric between the Head of State and the LOO is good fodder for the media and the party faithful, this does not preclude the opening of a “back channel” to move things along, away from the glare of the public, as one means of facilitating progress. As Aubrey should recall, this is a common facility employed in difficult negotiating situations.
The back channel is a tried and tested modality for averting disaster and advancing negotiations. Does anybody for one minute believe that NATO Military Commanders are not in touch with their Russian military counterparts while war rages in the Ukraine, or that the Chairman of the US Joint Chiefs of Staff and the Chinese Military Commander do not have a communication link, while tensions rise in the South China Sea? In the conduct of this type of quiet diplomacy, a secure direct hotline has been used between Washington and Moscow ever since the parties climbed down from the threatened nuclear annihilation during the 1962 Cuban Missile Crisis. Again, President Jimmy Carter’s September 1978 Camp David meeting with Egyptian President Anwar Sadat and Israeli Prime Minister Menachem Begin could not have taken place without a number of pre-meetings being held to prepare the terrain and remove obstacles for their eventual discussions.
For as long as this impasse persists between the Government and the Opposition, progress at the level of the nation-state would be jeopardized. I shudder to think if, heaven forbid, matters of an existential nature were to be visited upon us, such as Venezuelan aggression, or inundation of the coastlands from the sea or catastrophic flooding from our interior rivers, how the LOO would be able to pivot to commit and be party to any search for national unitary positions and solutions, absent the handshake.
The ball is in Mr. Norton’s court – indeed it has been for months. It is time to put the nation first, put country over party, and to shake hands and get on with the business of nation-building for the greater good and benefit of all. With a healthy infusion of creativity, flexibility and pragmatism on all sides, the impossible could, with some effort, become the possible.
Yours sincerely,
Neville Bissember
