WE HAVE entered the month of May — the month when, 50 years ago, the Union Jack was lowered for the last time and the Golden Arrowhead was hoisted for the first time.That simple act brought to a symbolic end 132 years of colonial rule which had been imposed on the nation following the formal end of slavery in 1834. Our Independence had come three decades after the labour uprisings of the 1930s and 13 years after our first elections were held under adult suffrage.

Between those elections in 1953 and the departure of the colonisers in 1966, Guyana had endured the agony of ethnic fracture at the political level, and the pain of ethnic violence in the early years of the 1960s. Yet, there we were on May 26, 1966, joining other peoples with a similar history in ushering in a new day. In our Anglophone Caribbean family, Jamaica and Trinidad and Tobago had led the way in obtaining political independence in 1962, and Barbados would follow Guyana in 1966.

It was a great moment for a people who had endured centuries of domination at the hands of those who had been intent on accumulating wealth and dominating the world. Guyana, by 1966, had moved from a space peopled by the original inhabitants to an ethnically diverse society in which all of the groups could legitimately lay claim to ownership.

What did Independence really mean for Guyana and Guyanese? Logically, it had to mean freedom from servitude and freedom to determine what that independence could and should mean. But given the diversity of ethno-cultural heritage, there could not be a seamless uniformity of what that self-determination would look like. The government of the day, grounded in one section of that diverse society, moved our Independence in a direction that was not always supported by its main political rival. It meant, therefore, that the content and direction of the Independence project was contested.

Therein lies the key to any honest reflection on our Independence journey. Not only was there contestation between the traditional rivals, but there developed, from an ideological standpoint, new currents of thought and advocacy about what needed to be done. All of this was happening against the background of a raging Cold War and the inevitable neocolonial backlash.

In the last analysis, Guyana was trapped in global and domestic politics that made it much more difficult to navigate the expectant freedom. As we look back over those 50 years, there is much to be thankful for, much to celebrate, and much to carry over into the next 50 years. As some would say, our very survival as a sovereign state and a holistic political community points to a resilience that has stood the test of time.

But our survival should not blind us to the stark realities of our existence. We continue to lag behind our peers in socio-economic developmental terms. Outward migration continues to hurt our ability to harness our human resources to effectively serve our collective needs. The historic ethnic problem still renders us helpless in the area of social cohesion. Our politics, despite some moments of hope, are as contentious as they were 50 years ago. We are still broadsided by rampant poverty and crime and deviance that flow from them.

It is because of the above — the good and the not-so-good — that we need a second Independence Covenant, which learns from the breath of the experiences of our first 50 years. The ills of the past should be tackled and corrected, and the successes should be taken to a higher level.

Eradicating the scourge of poverty and want should be at the top of the agenda, for therein lies most of the agony and excesses we are forced to live with. The dignity of labour, education and struggle must be restored to a place of worth. The new covenant must inspire rebirth, renewal and a general renaissance of our Guyana.

In this process, there is a major role for Government and politics, but there is a greater role for people in their communities. If our people are mobilized beyond party politics to reach for their own self-emancipation, then independence would take on a new meaning. If our people are afforded jobs with a living wage, then our independence would move closer to the promise of freedom.

This, our new calling, must be grasped with eager hands and hearts. We can overcome again.