The month of July has become a month of remembrance for fallen victims as seen through the various ceremonies held for the 38 Sun Chapman victims, the Ballot-Box martyrs, Michael Forde, Father Bernard Darke, Mark Crawford and Alberta Fife of July 3, and Balram Khandi. This year, for some reason, the commemorations appeared to have an extra poignancy about them. One gets a sense that we are now slipping into a posture of having "our martyrs" and "your killers". Eusi Kwayana in his book "No Guilty Race" puts it best when he says, "Here we have a search for enemies, we have accusation, falsehood mixed with truth..." We are each entitled and indeed expected to remember our heroes and martyrs in our own ways but at some stage the various events must form a national confluence from which all honours and remembrances flow. Each of the names mentioned from the Sun Chapman victims right through to the young PYO cadre who lost his life is deserving of mention but let us avoid the need to mix fiction with fact and honour "our martyrs" responsibly and collectively.
Recently, I found myself having a difference of opinion with a member of my family about the establishment of a Truth and Reconciliation Commission in Guyana. In my opinion, we as a people demonstrate everyday that we are not ready for such a commission. My relative felt that we are. In a sense I consider that we are both right but it is difficult if not impossible to direct people to reconcile their differences when in essence and by their daily actions they choose to keep alive the pain and atrocities to, as they say, remind the upcoming generation of the past. If not carefully and nationally managed, we will actually cause more harm to the consciousness and psyche of the young people than we care to imagine. I maintain the view that yes we desperately need reconciliation in Guyana but that the people who are still hurting have not yet come to that realisation or acceptance that the time for healing is now and that as a consequence, they are themselves causing pain to others. I could never forget the words of a dear friend who told me some years ago "hurting people hurt".
It is against this background of distrust and growing hatred that the elections due by March 2006 are to be held. We are yet to settle on the electoral system to be utilised for these elections even though we hurl ourselves with great velocity towards the date. One gets a sense that there will be the usual foot-dragging, grandstanding and then the mad rush to implement some new system of governance that is untested and therefore potentially dangerous. Already, there is a pervasive feeling that the upcoming elections will be accompanied by violence. The reason for this is because the citizens get a sense that nothing will change in terms of the rhetoric, the machinations, the manipulations, the accusations and of course, the outcome. It is difficult to imagine how we as leaders can allow this perception to gain strength and become self-prophesying without doing something to avoid it. There are a few options open to us but not all of them rank equally.
Many views have been advanced and the most spoken of is executive power sharing as proposed by the PNCR and a number of other political parties, NGOs and workers' unions. On the other hand there is the PPP/C's inclusive governance. I like to believe that the fact that the two giants could speak of shared and inclusive is in itself a recognition and acceptance that the system we work with is failing us. The greatest paradox before us however is that in the face of the stark realties, we are driving ourselves further apart rather than nearer to implement either shared or inclusive governance. It is difficult to share power where people feel dread and fear of the other arising out of months of brutality, inhumanity, and crime. It is difficult to share power where people feel that the other group has used death squads to exterminate its members like vermin and it is also just as difficult to share power if both groups feel constrained to go back into the past to further the competition for being adjudged the most victimised group.
What then can we expect for the next elections? The PNCR and numerous other organisations have called for shared governance saying that this is the only way forward for Guyana. We have had in the main the Westminster system of governance since 1966 and perhaps except for brief periods of growth and prosperity under Presidents Burnham, Hoyte and Jagan the nation can be categorised as underdeveloped. Most of us will agree that our lack of progress is a direct result of bad management leading to poor economic performances, which in turn led to ethnic insecurity and struggle for economic and political dominance. We have had no hurricane, earthquake, tidal wave, volcano, drought or famine yet countries afflicted with these maladies on a regular basis continue to do better than we do. Our political bosses have made bad decisions and have both directly and indirectly fed the ethnic monster a diet of fear, distrust and dislike. I recall that as a member of a group which visited Northern Ireland in 1998 what impacted on me the most was not the clauses of the power-sharing agreement that had been arrived at but rather the degree of hatred that had permeated every man, woman and child. The document without trust and respect for self and others meant nothing.
The difficulties we face are manifold and the choices for solution are growing fewer. We can go about our business as usual; we can share power at the executive level; we can share power at the Parliamentary and Executive levels; or we can partition the state into two or three parts. The PNCR and others favour power sharing at the executive level where cabinet positions are apportioned based on the percentage of votes garnered at the polls. The PPP/C on the other hand speaks of inclusivity whereby the decision making process is broadened as reflected in Boards, Commissions, Committees and of course in the National Assembly. The PPP/C says that it has implemented inclusive democracy but we are yet to see where. As the adage reminds us, the proof of the pudding is in the eating. The latest decision to cancel political dialogue is a case in point, which I am sure the President will seek to justify.
Reluctantly, I have to concede that the imminent arrival of President Carter is perhaps the best opportunity we may have before the upcoming General Elections to broker peace in Guyana. The visit must not be squandered on idle business like getting Jagdeo and Corbin to talk but must start a meaningful process that creates the platform for building trust leading to: acceptance of responsibility; reconciliation; constitutional reform; and a restoration of the dignity and responsibility of Guyana's most important institution - the Parliament. It would be disastrous to implement any form of power sharing, inclusive governance or even an interim national-front government without the necessary preparatory work being done in advance. All those who lost their lives innocently for the cause of race and politics in Guyana deserve a lasting tribute of peace, stability and prosperity.