THE TERM ‘looking back’ conjures up as much satisfaction as it does of resentment.
We learn at school that history is important for becoming more aware of who we are, where we came from, why we are in the situation we’re in, and how it may be possible for us to transform our present circumstances by trying to shape our destiny.
But as we emerge into the arena of adulthood, gear into romantic drive and begin to explore a number of career options, we tend to place the virtue of looking back into controversial mode.
No more is this truer than in politics. Depending on which side of the political spectrum one subscribes to, one will either be applauded or else be criticized for looking back, for going back in time, for “delving” into one’s or an organization’s past. Yet reverting to history remains as important to competing politicians as it does to a citizenry who has to make the choice of its life come election time.
“History may be called, more generally still, the Message, verbal or written, which all Mankind delivers to every man,” famous Scottish author Thomas Carlyle (1795—1881) wrote well over a century ago.
Fortunately for the electorate, the principles of representative government and representative opposition shift the burden of making decisions on every public policy issue away from voters and onto the shoulders of those whom they elect.
It is on the issue of power sharing, shared governance, or inclusiveness that history triggers highly emotive responses.
The PNC/R, to which mention of its 28 years in government by current government functionaries has become anathema, proudly reminds Guyanese that it was under PNC rule that Guyana established diplomatic relations with The People’s Republic of China, Guyana became a leading member of the Caribbean Community (CARICOM) and, among other things, set the nation’s then-ailing economy on fast-paced recuperation.
Some officials, for their part, aren’t as comfortable with criticisms of the failure of government to accomplish certain goals as they are with the highlighting of successfully-implemented programmes that have yielded immeasurable benefits for the nation.
But it is in the area of power sharing/shared governance/inclusiveness that government and opposition appear to disagree most fiercely at the present time.
PNC/R leader Robert Corbin gave Guyanese and non-Guyanese alike food for thought when he advocated his party’s break with the past, the end of attacks on people perceived to be members/supporters of the ruling PPP/C, and political changes that would replace winner-take-all rule with a more central role for the opposition in government.
Former U.S. President Jimmy Carter was obviously disillusioned with Guyana’s current political culture, concluding that he wasn’t very optimistic that President Jagdeo would budge on the question of government and opposition running the country, even if it’s an arrangement as fragile as that which obtains in Israel.
President Jagdeo says that just wouldn’t work. His belief is that if, in spite of the constitutional reforms that have reduced the powers of the executive branch and given the opposition greater governmental oversights, the PNC/R isn’t satisfied with its constitutional role as opposition, executive power sharing at Cabinet level would be “a recipe for disaster.”
“The same gridlock that we have in implementing these constitutional changes, if taken into Cabinet, could spell disaster for this country – because nothing will happen,” he said on television last week.
We may or may not pay much attention to the Vishnu Bisram poll, but Guyanese definitely want government and opposition to resume their dialogue. They want to see Guyana develop and to enjoy the fruits of their blood, sweat and tears. And they want to see the country’s political leaders consider the interest of the people as paramount.