Someone once wrote that all that is necessary for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing. It is an admonition that all the good men and women in Guyana need to heed now that the constructive engagement has come to an end.
In its place the Leader of the Opposition Robert Corbin is suggesting that further discussions on issues of critical national importance should now be discussed in a wider forum that includes the civil society organisations. He did caution however that care would have to be taken to ensure that individuals and organisations are not "fronts" for one or other of the political parties.
So far neither President Bharrat Jagdeo nor his government has reacted to the proposal but the President has indicated at his last press conference that he would be making his thoughts known at a time of his choosing. However, PPP general secretary Donald Ramotar is of the view that whatever arrangement is in place it is still necessary for the two major parties to have an ongoing dialogue.
One recalls the Social Partners Initiative launched with much fanfare in 2001 but which feebly petered out in the face of suspicion of the motives of the organisations behind it. Two of the three organisations - the Trades Union Congress and the Guyana Bar Association were perceived by the government as hostile to it. The commitment of the third - the Private Sector Commission - was perceived as suspect because of the dependence of its members on concessions from the government.
Moreover, the government baulked when the Social Partners proposed a secretariat that would oversee the implementation of the decisions that were taken and the establishment of which it was indicated the donor community was willing to fund.
However, the perceptions apart, the initiative was welcome since the dialogue process between then PNCR leader Desmond Hoyte SC and Mr Jagdeo was bogged down in "finding and proving" of what was agreed at their meetings and how much of what was agreed had been implemented.
The proposal for the secretariat was to address the problem of the lack of a common understanding as to what was agreed and who was required to implement the decision(s) of the dialogue process.
The constructive engagement process was structured in a way that Jagdeo and Corbin believed would have addressed the problem of ensuring a common understanding of the decisions they took. Provision was also made for reports on the progress being made to a stakeholder grouping, which included the international donor community.
There is no need to relate the various misunderstandings as to the form the report to the stakeholder grouping should take and the miscommunications about the dates of meetings. It is a comedy of errors that paints a far from flattering picture of our top political operatives.
More serious though is the seeming reluctance of both the government and the international donor community to have the latter too involved in any activity that monitors its political performance. For its part the donor community is wary of being accused of meddling in Guyana's internal affairs.
It is a misplaced apprehension on the part of the government since it has been willing while in opposition to have the international community intervene in our affairs and the donors have been doing that since it took office in 1992 albeit with apparently one eye closed.
It is also a misplaced apprehension on the part of the donor community since it has been providing all sorts of assistance in every conceivable area of national life. What the apprehension might be is that the insights gained in the process may force it to look more critically at the performance of the government, which it has demonstrated a marked reluctance to do with any degree of consistency.
The donor community apart the critical task is for civil society, which means all of us, both in our individual capacities and through the various organisations of which we are members be they church, labour unions, service clubs or lodges.
The government is responsible to us, the people of Guyana and must be responsive to our concerns. We cannot abdicate the responsibility of holding our political leaders accountable for they hold their positions by virtue of our support.
We cannot allow them to do things in our name and refuse to act when we find the things they do reprehensible and inimical to our own interest. We have a duty to hold our leaders to standards of governance which ensure that their policies take into positive account the interests of all Guyanese, whether they live in town or country, on the coastland or hinterland, attend church, mosque or mandir to worship their God, be he Mohamed, God or Lord Krishna.
As members of civil society organisations we, the Guyanese people, have to become more active to ensure that the agenda these organisations pursue are in the interest of the organisation and not the personal agenda of their leaders.
The breakdown of the constructive engagement process is a call to arms that we ignore at our peril. For if we continue to be apathetic about becoming involved in the affairs of our nation we will continue to be prisoners in our homes, waiting for the knock in the night that takes one of our loved ones away to be seen again dead and abandoned in some desolate area of the town or countryside.
If we heed the call we can address Corbin's caution about individuals or organisations pursuing the interest of one or the other political party; we can be assured that in any discussions the interest of the nation would be uppermost in the priorities of the participants. Most of all we will ensure that we could yet bequeath to our heirs a Guyana worthy of their loyalty and dedication and to which their minds can remigrate as they see the prospects for a better life at home than in some far off land.
With honest leadership at the organisational level all that would need to be done is to select a representative grouping that would engage the political parties in the discussions with the political parties and the government in the discussions of issues of national importance. Importantly, there must a clear understanding on the part of the government that it has the primary responsibility for facilitating the implementation of decisions and that the opposition parties have no less a responsibility to discharge those tasks they undertake to do with the same scrupulous regard for timeliness.
Also, the donor community's proposal for funding a mechanism for monitoring the implementation of decisions should be pursued. It is the only sensible way forward if we are to avoid the disappointments we have suffered in leaving it only to the major political parties. Article 13 of the constitution provides for we the people to be involved in the decision making process on issues that affect our well-being.