The President has many rivers and mountains to cross to reach national unity

Dear Editor, I commend President Granger for the substance, tone, and sweep of his inclusive words in that Republic Day address. The occasion was right, and the audience taken in its entirety could not have missed this latest gambit in his ongoing search for social cohesion and that sweet encircling spot that leads upwards together. But (here it comes) I must respectfully disagree with the President on some aspects of his message.

Presence does not equate to unity. This is so regardless of which race, or how many such races, or how enduring that presence. To be sure, it is wonderful for a leader to recognize and publicly highlight such presence, but I will assert that mere presence, in and of itself, can be a combustible contributor to disunity. For it feeds insecurities and leads to social disequilibria, which in turn breeds simmering resentments. All of this makes such a presence, any presence, a field ripe for exploitation. It is what has been had.

Next, contributions can in time mushroom to a position of dominance in one or several sectors; this furnishes the mental fodder and financial wherewithal for incoming presences to pursue growth and expansion into other domains. These domains might be the traditional preserve of others of a different heritage. Therein lies the embers of sparking trouble, for with such comes the live electrical wire of that sometimes constructive, sometime obnoxious word. It is called competition.

Competition for a rising presence and de facto hegemony in new hunting grounds brings conflict. This is nowhere more absolute, more roiling, than in the drive for ascendancy from the agricultural fields to the aristocracy of authority and power. At the peak of the power pyramid in Guyana stands political power. Political power opens and scales all gates, marshals all assets, shapes all forces, and drives all decisions. As is well known and is now indisputable, here all of those all just identified accrue to only and mainly some at any particular point in time. The convergence of contributions and accumulations and visions lead to this confrontational flashpoint. Herein resides the ongoing meltdown of disunity.

On a not altogether unrelated note, I have always wondered if the power pie and economic pie were both large enough to accommodate supplicants and expectants from all corners, what this would have meant to environmental atmospherics and ethnic ambience of this nation. Would it have been markedly different in temperature, result, and comity?

Further, I have pondered as to whether, if this country was ethnically homogenous, what the story would have been. The history and realities of other monoculture places reveal that that expected unity fragment before the forces of class, caste, and clan, and not necessarily in that order. This is regardless of presence, duration, and contributions. It is sometimes manageable, but only with extensive effort. That herculean effort has not ever been expended here.

In Guyana, presences have not led to a power apparatus and social dynamic characterized by representation of ‘A’ and ‘B.’ The formula has always been ‘A’ or ‘B.’ Stated more jarringly, the landscape is overwhelmed by the expectation, insistence, and reality of one at the expense of the other. The swings are secondary, and conveniently manoeuverable.

To go where the President envisions and to make that elusive national unity a true reality calls for, demands, an excruciating mental, psychological, and emotional undoing of what has been assiduously cultivated; and an unravelling of calculations and ambitions on all fronts and from all parties involved. Repeat: on all fronts and from all parties involved.

Is this doable? Is it realistic? Is it worthwhile to invest the considerable political capital required? Notwithstanding the misgivings and contentions of above, I answer in the affirmative. National unity can occur here, but only if there is the willingness to give it a chance. That chance flows from the accompanying self-sacrifices that must be made. Of necessity, such self-sacrifice brings the painful excisions, the sensitive re-engineering, and the lengthy rehabilitation of both mind and heart. This is a very sick nation; it will take a lot to mend it.

The President should know that he has many rivers and rapids ahead to cross in his journey towards national unity; there are many mountains to be scaled waiting behind in the obscure distance. Still, it is worth the try.

Yours faithfully, GHK Lall