At the beginning of the month, President Irfan Ali extended an invitation to all the Presidents of our Republic – immediate past President David Granger, and his predecessors, Donald Ramotar, Bharrat Jagdeo and Sam Hinds – to a meeting over lunch on December 15. Explaining his thinking, the incumbent President said, “…it is an opportunity for us to continue to share ideas, generate ideas, to talk about how we see Guyana’s development, different perspectives and then to work out a model and a framework of how we engage in the future and how we can have continuous contribution.”
It was noteworthy that the proposed date of the meeting was a mere 10 days before Christmas, and during what is universally seen in Guyana as “the season of goodwill”. In this season, most of our peoples put aside whatever differences they may have with each other and interact with increased friendship and bonhomie. It is the season for “burying the hatchet”. Surely President Ali would have been aware of this ambiance and might have even been influenced by it to reach out to his predecessors, who are his seniors not only in preceding him in office but also in age.
After the very tense situation that had developed in the country since the No Confidence Motion of Dec 21, 2018 and especially in the five months following the March 2nd elections, the Guyanese nation surely needs a respite. While some like APNU/AFC Gecom Commissioner Vincent Alexander had cynically dismissed the invitation as a “photo op”, even if this were true, it is our contention that it could have gone a long way in defusing our tensions.
In our ethnically divided country, the posture of the leaders goes a far way in signaling inter-group relations and who knows what cooperation might have developed between the people on the ground from the picture of their leaders “breaking bread” with each other. But additionally, President Ali had made explicit the agenda of his deliberately chosen informal setting of the meeting, which would have precluded the institutionalized divisions of formal, official summits or conclaves.
Surely the invitation “to share ideas, generate ideas, to talk about how we see Guyana’s development, different perspectives and then to work out a model and a framework of how we engage in the future and how we can have continuous contribution”, had enough substance to supplement the informal setting. Let us unpack the President’s desiderata, which we believe presented more than enough meat for Mr Granger to masticate and massage on behalf of his constituency.
Firstly, there is the acceptance of “differences” and the concept of “Guyana’s development”. Mr Granger campaigned on the basis of a Manifesto promulgated by his APNU/AFC coalition that spelled out in great detail their vision in this area. Maybe, he could have identified areas in which the PPP’s actions since the Aug 2nd transition differed significantly from what he promoted? Was the PPP’s action to limit the flaring of gas, for instance, not in consonance with Mr Granger’s “Green State” model of development?
We know that Mr Granger disagrees with the decision to reopen the sugar estates, but surely, he would have had to admit that his unilateral decision to divest the four shuttered estates failed and they were becoming, in the words of his Finance Minister Jorda, “scrap metal”. And that the PPP’s actions at a minimum will rehabilitate the assets as was recommended by his COI, in which the WPA’s Clive Thomas played a major role.
But most importantly was the agenda item “to work out a model and a framework of how we engage in the future and how we can have continuous contribution.” What could be more magnanimous than this offer? Mr Granger could have placed on the table his model of how his party or coalition would have “continuous contribution”. Was it the “shared governance” model he had campaigned on with his 2015 Manifesto but which never was mentioned after he took office?
All in all, Mr Granger missed a glorious opportunity to change our toxic political culture
