Understanding Guyana, is there a solution?

Dear Editor,
There is something cowardly in expressing a point of view on conditions in Guyana while one is living far away. This is true for most countries but living far away is necessary for expressing opinions on Guyana. That is so for one is far removed from the animalistic threats that dominate life in Guyana, a recent example being the funeral procession for Retired Justice Singh with all its obvious implications.
I remember as a small child growing up in Georgetown that my main activity before going to bed was to ensure that all the doors were locked and windows secured. I expressed to someone living in New York the other day that where I live, I do not even bother locking the front door to the house and have never done so for 23 years and that person was amazed. “You must be stupid not to lock your door,” the person pointed out, noting how proud he was to live in a gated compound that was secured by a fence and guard at the gate. He also had extra security around his house.
Even to this day, there are many in Guyana that do not realise this was probably one of the main reasons for people of all races to leave Guyana. Simply put, it was to seek safety from the ever-present threat of thieves. A question to ponder is what would it take to produce life in Guyana where locks on the doors are not necessary? Would that not be a desirable circumstance?
In the present ongoing illogical squabble about the March elections, it has to be said that this present legal babbling is preferable to the other alternatives of retaining power. We have the decades-long examples of Burnhamism, where stealing elections and massive rigging at the ballot boxes (before the count) was the mechanism of choice. Then there is the choice of armed coups in other countries.
This situation appears to be aggressive and bullying bare-faced thievery in early March followed by a series of embarrassing and failed legal coups and thus a first among worldwide governing entities. Of course, the main forces acting against the attempted thievery by Mingo and Lowenfield (graduates from the Burnham college of government) and the failed legal coups are the legal minds of the aligned opposition parties and, probably, more importantly, the regional and international forces pointing out that this thievery is quite apparent. Sanctions were never employed during the 1980s, not that Guyana had much to offer back then.
It does appear, from other accounts I read in the various newspapers, that once in power, thievery on a massive scale is possible. How can it be that the PPP, after 23 years in power, left the incoming Government 15 billion (on March 2015 which was immediately squandered) and now this Government, after the discovery and exploitation of oil and all that gold, has accrued a 91 billion dollar deficit (ie, June 24, 2020, information at the public deposit at BoG) after 4 years? Does Guyana really require 27 Ministries or is this the only way to afford employment to some who may be lacking in entrepreneurial skills or education? What is the way out of this mess? Reading about this circumstance is making everyone learn Latin. At some point, these courts have to start dismissing the lawsuits (ie, Res Judicata).
At 17:00h on Monday (7-20-2020) after High Court Justice Roxane George ruled, Singh (Chairman of GECOM) should have informed Lowenfield (CEO of GECOM) to submit the numbers based on the recount by 10 am the next day when she should have held a meeting to declare the election results. I am assuming that Singh could turn on a computer at 4 pm on Monday and hear the judgment of the High Court. It is not enough for Singh to continue delaying this meeting and useless correspondence with Lowenfield under the guise of waiting for all these legal manoeuvres to end. Either that or fire Lowenfield. Then, once the PPP is in power, the election petition can be filed. I would volunteer my services free of charge to investigate the voting by the dead.

Sincerely,
Rudy Luck
Hancock, MI, USA