WELCOME, THOUGH NOT PERFECT
WE HAVE to set standards for Government to secure the standards by which we want to be governed. The events of the 25th May that resulted in the PPP/C walkout due to seating accommodation should never have happened in the first instance. That Minister Nicolette Henry, who was responsible for organising the event, has apologised for what occurred is a welcoming gesture, even if not perfectly constituted.The 50th anniversary of independence is bigger than partisan party politics. It is about Guyana, 50 years after the nation experienced the hoisting of the Golden Arrowhead and the lowering of the Union Jack, during which there was that famous hug between Cheddi Jagan and Forbes Burnham. These were two political rivals who recognised what independence meant to the people of this country and put aside their differences, even if only momentarily, to demonstrate to this nation the importance of what was achieved.
Burnham sought to forge a nation of One People, One Nation and One Destiny. 50 years later, our sitting Government, in pursuit of realising this dream, refers to it as social cohesion, national unity and inclusivity.
On 25th May, the citizens needed a repeat of the symbolism of 1966, when the people came together as one. This could have been achieved had Government, Opposition, and organisers come together and plan various events how best to celebrate the Jubilee to gain maximum involvement of all the people.
The explanation given by the minister about the perceived mixing up that led to the walk out of the Leader of the Opposition and his entourage, followed by the PPP/C’s explanation, gave the nation the impression that concrete decisions were not made for adequate seating accommodation for the parliamentary opposition.
To be responding to the PPP by the way of media releases will not, and cannot, help the situation. In addition to the media releases, a call could have been made to the Leader of the Opposition, expressing the Government’s straightforward and genuine apology. The failure to take strident action to avoid such occurrence, and then to correct them swiftly on the said night, hurts the image of the Government. This was made no better by an apology that raised more questions.
Any act that seeks not to correct what occurred on the night of the 25th sends a message to the supporters of the Opposition that the current Government is interested only in conducting the business and events of State with the participation and support of its constituency.
The Leader of the Opposition is constitutionally a Member of the Executive, and speaks on behalf of approximately 50 percent of the electorate in this country. What this matter also speaks to is that it is not about Bharrat Jagdeo or any of the PPP/C persons; it is about public office, and how we treat with it. Today the opposition members are PPP/C; tomorrow they can be the coalition members. It also says that those responsible for organising and executing the event were not adequately trained to manage such a large-scale national event, and lacked knowledge in protocols.
As we reflect on what writers and commentators have been saying about the role of Burnham and Jagan, and on many occasions blaming them for the current divisions that exist in Guyana, the events of 25th May 2016 exonerated these two men. While these men were political rivals in 1966, they sought to embrace each other, signalling to the nation that, as established by our motto, they were prepared to lead by example.
Whilst some may be covertly and overtly enjoying the discomfiting experience by Jagdeo and those whom he led, knowing of his dastardly deeds and mistreatment of a large section of the Guyanese population who would have been represented at that forum, we must be cognisant that the office he represents and previously represented are offices worthy of respect, even though he, as a person, might not be.
Jagdeo has been treated the same way he treated people, but what ought not to be lost sight of is that this Government has been elected to do better than the previous one; and, as such, has a greater responsibility to behave in a civil manner.
In 1964, we came out of serious ethnic and tribal battle, yet Jagan and Burnham demonstrated to the nation that they could have worked together. 50 years later, the divisions are more pronounced from the level of our political leadership; and it is for this reason that it is required of us to call on each and every one to stop talking the talk and begin to walk the walk.
