THE achievement of independence on the 26th May 50 years ago today marked another phase of development in the quest for freedom. This journey began with the fight against enslavement, indentureship and colonisation. In the process of acknowledging that development occurs in phases, recognition is given to the abolition of the slave trade which predated amelioration and freedom from slavery, which was followed by freedom of indentureship. These phases laid the foundation for the fight and achievement of universal adult suffrage, limited self-government and independence.   The bottom line is independence is a stepping stone to a nation’s growth and development. Among those who contributed to the 1966 struggle are namely Hubert Nathaniel Critchlow, Cheddi Jagan, Forbes Burnham, Peter D’Aguiar and not forgetting the people of Guyana. All who struggled at the end of the day, there had to be someone to whom the British Empire trusted to hand the Instrument of Independence : that person was Linden Forbes Sampson Burnham.
In politics it is also about policies and programmes, and in this regard Burnham gained the favour of the British coloniser and its allies, in an era when the Cold War was raging and no consideration had been given to any self-proclaimed communist.
With political independence, Burnham was tasked with the responsibility to lead the nation, to build and to forge “One people, One Nation, One Destiny.” It was he who took our young nation a step further to attaining the next phase of republican status, which is the ultimate freedom from political control.
As the nation achieved its political independence, the former coloniser/mother country still sought to retain control through various methods of control and influence such as the World Bank and International Monetary Fund. It became evident that political independence did not necessarily mean economic independence and the government of the day ought to have recognised this.
The policies of economic self-reliance, such as feeding, clothing and housing the nation sought to address this challenge for a nation that was importing more than exporting and not fully exploiting its agricultural and other natural resources for its own benefit.
Independence meant facing the many challenges of racial and ethnic tension. An indigenous education was pursued to reshape the way Guyanese saw themselves, to forge a nation, and to promote, understanding, respect, tolerance and peaceful co-existence among the various ethnic groups. This had the potential to reduce tensions, particularly between the two major groups, but yet proved more challenging given what appeared like an imbedded appositional tendency to accept the domestic leadership of Burnham.
These struggles also gave rise to the promotion of   egalitarianism with efforts to ensure  all were socialised to see themselves as equals. Each worker was promoted as important.  No longer was the   small man seen as mere hewers of burden, and his well-being incidental to production and productivity. The ideal promoted was for the “small man to be the real man.”
The quest for economic independence also influenced the nationalisation  drive  e.g. In the  bauxite and sugar industries,  and opening of national banks to drive local economic ventures. These sectors at the time epitomised a class, colour and race hierarchy, where Guyanese were not at the helm. Nationalisation moved that away and created space and opportunities for locals to be in positions of ownership and control.
That foundation having being laid, all who came after have to add to that vision in keeping with time, national and global perspective  and challenges.  Whereas at independence there was need to establish resistance to cultural penetration and other factors, local and external, that would have threatened the stability of a fledgling nation, it is now left for others to advance nationhood within the current context.
Today, the nation witnesses decay in the early values. Guyana faces the threat of information communication technologies influencing anti-nationalistic behaviours. In addition to the threat of terrorism, there is the drug trade and corruption that transcend borders. Facing this challenge will require measures being put in place for social protection in the context of crime and drugs, where they have infiltrated every strata of society, rivalling the formal economy and threatening the arms of government.
Where the National Insurance and Social Security Scheme (NIS) was put in place in 1969 as a safety net, there is need for another safety net, such as protection from the influences of drugs. The APNU +AFC government to its credit has undertaken to advance development in less than a year with the invitation of the DEA to set up a Guyana-based office. The government has also advanced the recent passage of stronger AML/CFT laws which will help in eradicating this scourge. The narco trade undermines the structure of government and independence, and destroys the very fabric of society.
At the political level, the challenge this nation faces is the restoration of holding leaders accountable within the confines of the laws, even as efforts are made to deepen and strengthen these. And last but not least, the most important challenge facing this nation and leaders lay in forging greater unity and respect. As a people, we have gone back on building one people, seeing ourselves as Guyanese with a purpose, where we are inter-related, interdependent and can co-exist in peace and harmony. There is work to be done to channel our energies towards nation-building where all can enjoy the fruits and benefits of this country.
Happy independence anniversary to all Guyana!