The pendulum in the year 2006
The Freddie Kissoon column
Kaieteur News
January 5, 2007
In my offering on Wednesday, I pointed to the contradictions of 2006. In juxtaposing the good and bad of the past year, we are faced with the choice of assigning weight. Are the adverse circumstances more likely to affect our future or we are about to see the dawn of a new Guyana ? I would like to preface my answer with the confession that I get burdened in writing consistently about the wrongs of the country I live in.
An American columnist can carry on non-stop about all that is negative with the Bush Administration and be comforted in the fact that his ranting will not deter Americans from investing or seeking out places in US colleges.
In Guyana , we are so small that we need all the investors we can get. Our only university needs all the talented lecturers that it can accept. Yet people have told me that my columns tend to discourage Guyanese and alienate parents from sending their kids to UG. A few years ago, while jogging in the Botanical Gardens, I met a small-scale businesswoman who told me that after what she read from me about UG, she was sending her girl abroad. She said her husband's mind was made up.
So I must have made two Guyanese parents turn their backs on UG. But where is the answer? I implore you tell me. I seek your advice. Why should I not write on a university in which there are no laboratory facilities? In doing so am I not informing the country about a fundamental problem in the educational system?
Is it possible that the Government was motivated to seek the Caribbean Development Bank loan of $600M ( Guyana ) for upgrading the labs after what I had written?
Of course, the other side of the coin is that in the constant sermonizing about the gloom in Guyana , you contribute to the pessimism of its citizens.
So where do I stand? I believe the purpose of my column is to seek out the truths that exist in Guyana . We can disagree on what constitute the truth but at least we cannot dispute facts. What are the facts in 2006? Let's just offer a short enumeration.
The execution of Ronald Waddell; the continued patterns of racial voting; the use of Government funds over and above what the National Assembly voted on in the budget without Parliamentary approval; the fixed mental attitude of rejecting the acceptance that radio licences should be offered to private citizens and groups; the shameless imposition of wage increases without even a modicum of respect for the negotiating process.
I could go on but that short list should suffice. You would have noticed that I cited action only on the part of the government (with racial voting being the exception).
In 2006, one can come up with only one instance of opposition intransigence – the unbridled political ambition of most opposition leaders that resulted in a fragmentary platform against the ruling party in the August election. Even the tape controversy involving the then Commissioner of Police, Winston Felix, did not impact injuriously on the society.
So what do I do in this particular column? Shall I proceed on the routine path? But isn't this a brand new year? Should not political commentators open their presentation with optimism about the future and cease the negative carping? Isn't Ronald Waddell dead? Yes, it was wrong to kill a political leader but how can I instill confidence in my fellow Guyanese by another lamentation on the murder of Waddell?
The customary five percent increase has been paid out. No critical commentary for the new year will reverse that fact. There was no other radio station licence granted last year.
Wouldn't it be better if we start from scratch this year and instead of going over all the negatives, hope for a better year by exhortations and not criticism?
The pendulum swung both ways in 2006. It was a year of receding freedoms. It was a year of extended freedoms. We had a gigantically satisfying election that made the society feel that the future is assured. Let's look at the good things that should happen this year.
In 2007, the journey towards inclusiveness, open government, and reconciliation must begin. It has to come from all angles in Guyana , not just the government alone. But we have to issue a large caveat. The state is coterminous with society. What the media, the opposition parties, the trade union movement and other pivotal sections of this country do to engender optimism and psychological comfort in the citizenry will not be socially effective as if and when it comes from the government.
The process is simple to understand. In the mind of the average citizen, the government has the power to make life better. The expectation is there that when the government is generous good things happen.
The same feeling is not there about the role of the opposition parties. It follows then that if a citizen is going to have confidence about the country's future, then the state has to be seen as forgiving, understanding and democratic.
In 2007, all political parties, trade unions, civil society actors and the population in general must endorse the Freedom of Information Act. It doesn't matter in which party's office it originated. The Freedom of Information law was something the people, not the government, of the United States gave to modern democracy.
As mankind lives longer, new ideas about increasing freedom and justice are constantly being germinated. The Freedom of Information Act was part of the modern process of making Government as a partner to the social contract more accountable.
To argue against a Freedom of Information Act coming to Guyana is to accept that Government is about secrecy, not about democracy
The items are too many but briefly, 2007 should see the end of the state monopoly on radio. It is an aspect of the exercise of power that is completely wrong. No one in this world, except Fidel Castro, would accept that it is right for a country to have one radio only.
I will continue with my list but I would like to close with the hope that now that the government has advertised for a Vice-Chancellor for UG that the selection is made on the basis of qualification and not party connection.
Gentlemen, please let the journey into the future begin at this very moment.