National awards must serve to separate truly extraordinary from merely exceptional

Dear Editor, The annual national awards raised the same two questions: Have national awards become debased through the steady erosion of rigour? Have these, what should be prestigious recognitions, diminished in sparkle and now lack an intrinsic appeal and the preeminence associated with rare elevated summits scaled? I think so.

Looking at recent lists, including the current one, and there are some awardees that bring a stirring. Well deserved! Then there are those that cause a stir of a different kind: say what? Sez who? How come? The reaction is sharp and disbelieving. I recall a conversation with my friend, Lawrence Williams (may he rest in peace), the late former Governor of the Bank of Guyana on the occasion of his own award. I said, “I see you are in good company.” That brought a long knowing chuckle. I wonder about these things.

It seems that for a long time (perhaps always), these awards have been about long service; in some instances that means long party service. Hence, there are the indulgences and dispensations extended by the local political bishopric. Clearly, it is a loyalty reward that takes the place of that anachronism, the gold watch. Perhaps, the national award, having been diluted by the calibre of some of the recipients, has metamorphosed into an anachronism in and of itself, right before the eyes in our time.

Continuing with this business about long service, I would think that the emphasis should be-must be-for distinguished and meritorious service; and even then of an outstanding variety. Thus, the Guyanese national award would come to represent a pinnacle of near peerless achievement; in this way it becomes almost like a Medal of Honour. Many will rush to contest that such would almost certainly rule out most. I agree, as I believe that national awards should assume that Spartan nimbus; that high refining crucible. I think that national awards must serve to separate the truly extraordinary from the merely exceptional.

I suggest that this is missing; particularly when one peers closely at past lists; there are huddled in the mists of numbers and the magic of a few glorious names, some real characters. Real Guyanese characters who have either ripped apart this society, or ripped it off at one time or another, and on multiple occasions and fronts. Even I, who have lived the larger part of my life elsewhere, know so. Citizens who have the priceless benefit of mainly living here, would most likely be in a better position to identify a felon or two, a few false prophets, and many a homegrown fake.

In all of this, my position is not that the lists should be perfect; but that their composition must not be so distant from it. Further, any expectation that those lists ought to be filled with angels and saints is patently unrealistic. They are just not here.

Having said this, I believe that the nation can do better; that it deserves better. I am sure that it can do better than the annually growing cohort of the colourless, the pedestrian, and the unimpressive. Long service ought not to be a criterion for national awards; nor being around the right people at the right time. The latter should be a disqualifier. This country needs pathfinders, trailblazers, boat rockers, and wave makers extraordinaire. Those kinds of folks do not get selected for medals; they incur the serious displeasure of the wrong people, powerful people. As Tertullian did say: “cum odio sui coepit veritas” (the first reaction to truth is hatred). Sorry, no medals for you baby; not this time. Yours faithfully, GHK Lall