THE national events celebrating the nation’s fiftieth year of political independence are over. Guyana has come a distance from the pre-independence era, but still has a distance to go. Noted areas of improvement in the nation and people’s development are indigenous laws, institutions, and the forging of a united ethos built on indigenous identity and lived experiences. These have not, and will not, be easy, based on historical experiences, including mistrust and stereotypes held notably between and among racial groups and classes.Guyana is not unique in the stated challenges, given that such occur in heterogeneous societies. These challenges pose problems when any aspect of diversity is used to practise or justify marginalisation and discrimination, rather than treat with it as opportunities to respect, learn, and benefit from each other. Societies that recognise diversity can be mishandled and are desirous of forging a united polity would not only put systems in place to achieve same, but would work assiduously to do so. To some extent, while the needle has moved here in legislating equality and respect for diversity, much work remains to be done to make the daily experiences inclusive and empowering.

It portends that there is need to return to the basics, acknowledge the many facets of diversity — such as race, which remains a divisive issue — and critically review perceptions and acts of exclusion that can hinder the ideal of “One People, One Nation, One Destiny” which established the nation-state in 1966. Frank, honest and open conversations on race, though good and important, must translate to meaningful actions at nation-building. Doing this requires a multiplicity of approaches, inclusive of data gathering to prove efforts in this regard are working, diversity in representation on national issues and in events. The latter can, in some instances, see events being taken to the people in their respective communities.

There is no intent to belabour the multiple views pertaining to the jubilee activities, and concerns expressed that such fell short in representing the diversity in the society. Suffice to say that where the main events were held in Georgetown, whose population is dominated by one ethnic group, it was a foregone conclusion that this group will be well represented, but on a national scale would be seen as being over-represented. The flag raising seating-accommodation controversy did not help in this regard.

In planning, diversity and inclusion could have been factored in, and ways sought to address them via multicultural presentations, providing or coordinating transportation for those in the outlining areas who wanted to attend events but were constrained by this factor. There was a time in independent Guyana when these were priority considerations when planning events of such nature.

In the outlying regions where there were flag raising ceremonies, diverse representation would have been more visible, but some factors cannot be ignored.

This nation has historical experiences of one group actively participating in national events, which is also eclipsed by partisan politics wherein to participate is considered as giving legitimacy to the incumbent government, or is seen as being supportive of the group that forms the government.

These are aspects of Guyana’s history, and efforts have to be made to advance a new way of thinking and behaviour.

That being said, the other issue attracting conversation is that of protocol. There is no denying that this country has, within recent times, slipped badly on social grace. It doesn’t make it acceptable to remain at this level, or settle for mediocrity when better -– it is known — can be, and was, done in the past. Formal events are not picnics; as such, they should be conducted with befitting decorum in every sphere. An invitation to formal events does not only require formal attire and attendance. Hosting of the event bears with it a menu of measures, such as ambience, décor, speech, entertainment, appropriate seating accommodation and placement of special invitees, formal silverware, plates and glasses consistent with the menu, and professional servers. All these communicate a language and send a message as to identity and character, right down to proper table setting and appropriate tableware.

There was a time in this society when protocol was treated with great seriousness, and state and government officials were exposed to such training. The presidential and prime ministerial guard pools in the post-impendence era had exposure to training by the Carnegie School of Home Economics, right down to how to hold a glass and silverware, which to use for what beverage or meal course, and the proper way to use a toothpick.

Evidently such standard was not only seen as befitting the political leadership and senior functionaries, but also their entourage, who were representations of them, their portfolios, and the country.

Observing protocol requires knowledge, practice and acceptance that there is a time and place for everything. More importantly, national and state events are usually seen as showcasing the people and nation, and it is reasonable to expect that at all times the best foot and efforts would be put forward. Going forward, events and experiences of the past — appropriate and in-appropriate — ought to serve as teachable moments and lessons on what to incorporate and what to reject.