The objective of the exhibition was to look back at the dream of Independence and to assess the national achievement since that historic milestone. This was a most favourable exercise given the current traumatised state of the nation.

The local struggle for political Independence was waged on two distinct fronts. The first, against an imperial power disinclined to admit of the dismantling of empire consequent upon a decline in its world power status. One compelling consequence of its loss of status was Britain’s increasing inability to effectively implement the much-touted colonial development plans of 1929, 1940 and 1945 and the consequential incapacity to quell the anti-colonial rebellion across her diverse empire.

In the particular case of British Guiana HMG was since 1951 pressured by the Washington administration to resist any attempt at constitutional devolution to a suspected communist regime in what was ostensibly America’s backyard. This American concern both encouraged and irritated HMG and these contrary responses were reflected in much of HMG’s policy implemented in Guiana between 1951-1966.

It explained the 1953 constitutional beratement, the return to democratic norms in 1957, the period of marking time between 1957 and 1961, the encouragement to the contentious politics of destabilisation, imperial succor to the politically ambitious while at the same time providing military support to the elected but besieged government.

Throughout this period, HMG, with the open support of the US, steadfastly resisted the UN’s Special Committee on Colonialism, which consistently supported the anti-colonial liberalisation process in Guiana and elsewhere.

The second front was reflected in the bitter power struggle, waged by the political aspirants on the domestic scene. The objective of this contest was two-fold. In the first instance, to forestall transfer of power to the PPP perceived by its detractors and competitors as either administratively incompetent and therefore incapable of coping with the burden of governing an ex-colonial state or as communists and therefore politically dangerous to the expatriate interests which controlled the local economy.

These fears were all rooted in the demography of the colonial state. The plural ethnic composition of the state had been a fertile field for administrative manipulation since the beginning of the colonial experience. A fragile coalition was achieved by the anti-colonial protagonists, between 1945 and 1953, fractured soon after, producing a polarised political system preying on ethnic suspicion and sectional insecurity.

One inevitable consequence was the civil disorders of the period 1962 - 1964 and the eventual ousting of the PPP government. In reflection, this now seems the genesis of the crisis of threatened national implosion, a compulsion to self-destruct, which became the chronic characteristic of the state’s existence thereafter, a situation which was considerably aggravated in the 1980s and again since 1992.

Political Independence came in 1966 but the dream of a secure future and a proud destiny have eluded us. We have been unable to formulate and successfully implement an acceptable national development strategy for economic development, good governance, social stability and cultural creativity.

Today, the state totters at the precipice of self-inflicted destruction. Political parties have been in and out of office but the fortunes of the nation have consistently declined and today we are as close to anarchy as we have ever been. Even as we celebrate 36 years of political Independence, we eke out a survival in a fragile state of political irresponsibility, national insecurity, economic underdevelopment, and lawless disorder.

The national exhibition From Colony to Nation facilitates a sober reflection on the yawning gap between political aspiration and national achievement. Thirty-six years on, we are a totally disillusioned people. A flag, a motto, a coat of arms, all proud national symbols; but symbols of what? A sorry past? A sorry people? The universal recipe for national development has always been unity, involvement, commitment and creativity.

If it is true that we are not in short supply of any of these then what in the Good Creator’s name is holding Guyana back?