History has shown time and time again that some politicians have a way of living in their own realities. Some even create their own beliefs and perceptions about the feelings, emotions and experiences of ordinary people who each day work assiduously to create a better standard of living for their families, regardless of the government of the day.
It is also true that some politicians whether deliberately or not master the skill and art of manufacturing lies, half-truths and concocted tales about the legacies of their adversaries in order to improve their own image and public standing at particular points in time.
Others pursue this route to conceal their shortcomings, misdeeds and inability to manage the State Bureaucracy and its resources which they would have inherited from their predecessors in Government.
In short, if one wants to understand the quality, integrity and ethical standing of a politician one must listen to them share their perspective on a country’s socioeconomic and political history. It is that simple! There is really no other way to understand the style, outlook and vision of modern day politicians.
President David Granger, therefore, provided thousands of Guyanese with the opportunity to access his standing, vision and political make-up when he delivered his recent post-recess address to a half-filled National Assembly this past week.
He did not fail to paint a doomsday picture of the country under the rulership of the Opposition People’s Progressive Party/Civic (PPP/C). Also a large portion of his address pointed to the excesses of consecutive post-1992 PPP Government with heavy emphasis on ministerial scandals, the crime wave, environmental mismanagement and a lack of good governance.
The President then smartly pointed to a myriad of so-called accomplishments that his A Partnership for National Unity/Alliance for Change (APNU/AFC) Government managed to provide during its 19-month tenure so far. He boasted about the commencement of a process to deliver “a good life” to Guyanese by not only correcting the excesses of the past Government but pursuing a more stable course that he believes can “make Guyana great again”. He said that the problems Guyanese were facing at the moment were “temporary” and would soon be addressed as he continued to praise his Government for what he was convinced was a good job so far.
After viewing the President’s speech, I was dismayed and disappointed. I had hoped to hear the President address the growing discontent of many Guyanese with the way his Government was handling the affairs of the country with focus on ending the apparent wave of what appears to be a growing trend of systemic racism and discrimination in almost every area of public service and public life.
It was my expectation that President Granger would have used the opportunity to reign his ministers in and to publicly express displeasure with the new wave of ministerial scandals and political infighting within the coalition for power, coupled with the poor performance of the economy thus far.
The truth is, the masses are not wealthier or better off under this Government when compared with the PPP/C. It would have been good for the President to say how many more jobs were created since he took office and how many more domestic and foreign investments were attracted that could boost the public’s confidence in the new Jordan-Sharma brand of economics that are being employed.
The President should have apologised for the continued hike in crime and criminality which is taking place under a highly-militarised Government. I wanted to hear the kind of Guyana that the President was intent on creating for the younger generations and an address to the Parliament that was not saddled with paradoxical statements, political correct rhetoric and unconvincing arguments about how bad the PPP/C was.
Like so many young Guyanese, I wanted the President to set out a clear mechanism for engaging the opposition in the decision-making apparatus of the State. Maybe, he should have made some more concessions available for the PPP to get onboard and work with the Government in core areas. But instead, the President chose a different route.
I disagree with much of the arguments made by political commentators such as David Hinds and Freddie Kissoon. They do not understand the yearning of our young people nor the type of change that we want in order to redefine the future of the country, to remove the ethnic as well as political barriers that stand in our way.
And now sadly, I disagree with the historical positions the President took on the legacy of the PPP and how he plans to achieve a good life for the people of this country. A good life can only be created through real mechanisms to achieve social cohesion and unity, ethnic equality and racial harmony, good governance and even shared governance between both the winners and losers of General Elections.
The dark days are returning but taking on a different form because our current leaders continue to live in their own realities.
