It must be hoped that the decision not to award honours is not indicative of a deeper intention to undermine the foundation of other established symbols of Guyanese ‘nationality’, but the evidence to the contrary is compelling.

The only other time since 1970 that national honours were not awarded was during Mrs. Janet Jagan’s brief Presidency. National honours apart, there have been clear signs all along that the Administration had second thoughts about many of the symbols which it inherited on entering office in 1992 and to which Guyanese had become accustomed.

It is to be recalled that, only last May, the National Trust published an advertisement inviting designs for a ‘National Monument’. Some Guyanese regard the Independence Arch as the ‘national monument’ and, besides the filthy site in which it is located, there seems to be no serious enough objection to that monument to warrant the conceptualisation and construction of a new monument. Others have expressed their discomfort with the imagery and theme of the 1763 Monument. Nevertheless, both monuments now suffer from official neglect and the intention to build a new one is unmistakable.

The debate about Mashramani, the national festival, is well known, if still unsettled. In the early years after the 1992 change of Administration, there were clear indications that Mashramani, like the monuments, would be treated with neglect. Fortunately, however, responsibility for the festival was transferred to Ms. Gail Teixeira. Mashramani has been revitalized and once more occupies a central place in national cultural life, despite some objections by certain interest groups.

The national day issue, also, seems undecided. The observance of 26 May - Independence Day - as national day was discontinued after Guyana became a Republic on 23 February 1970. The present Administration re-started the observance of 26 May as a national holiday and shifted the announcement of national awards from 23 February to 26 May. At the same time, it made the day of its accession to office - 9 October - the occasion for the presentation of the insignia of those awards. So far, however, neither 26 May nor 9 October has fired the imagination of the populace as a major national festival.

The dispute about the observance of national holidays has also been reignited. The Amerindians claimed that their representatives petitioned the Administration several years ago, without result, for a special national holiday to honour the country’s indigenous inhabitants. Later, the Indians petitioned to have Indian arrival day made a national holiday. Unsurprisingly, the voices of the Chinese and Portuguese, though muted, were added to the chorus.

There have also been criticisms of the national flag from persons in certain quarters who felt that the colours represented the values of one section of the population and not the other. In fact, it can be pointed out that the colours of the flags of both major parties are present in the national flag.

Strangely, the one symbol which should legally have been modified has escaped the attention of the revisionists. The national coat of arms depicts a medieval knight’s helmet which is symbolic of British monarchical rule. The helmet was dropped in 1970 when Guyana became a republic. Some images of the modified coat of arms were circulated but are not widespread and the incorrect emblem remains in general use.

Years of nibbling at the national symbols have created disaffection and disrespect. ‘Guyanese nationality’ has been manifested through certain internationally recognised symbols the anthem, festivals, flag, holidays, honours, monuments etc. which citizens perceive as embodying the identity of the nation.

Caution should be exercised in discarding those symbols for whatever reason.