The Red House controversy

guyana chronicle editorial

November 10, 2015

THE controversy over the fate of Red House is very instructive. The manner in which the People’s Progressive Party (PPP) went about acquiring the building and State funding for the institute are symptomatic of that party’s style of governance, which some commentators have described as being grounded in the need to monopolise and dominate the common political space.

The Attorney General’s reasonable proposal that the building should house the papers and other works of all presidents was meant as a compromise on this very sensitive issue. It was also a gesture of reconciliation, which has been a central part of this government’s praxis. The PPP’s response to the AG’s proposal was shocking. In very crude terms, the party literally said it would be sacrilegious to have Dr. Jagan’s papers housed in the same building as those of Mr Burnham’s and Mr. Hoyte’s. What is most surprising is that the one leading this chorus is former President Donald Ramotar. Considered to be among the more moderate elements in the PPP’s leadership, the former president was un-ceremoniously dumped by his party after its ouster from power earlier this year. One would have thought that he would have been among the more reasonable on this matter. We fully support the AG’s proposal. In our fractured society, this would be a powerful statement for national unity. The PPP’s argument that Dr. Jagan’s belief in democracy was different from that of Mr Burnham and Mr Hoyte is simplistic. A close study of our political history would show that all of our leaders have presided over undemocratic actions. But even if some were less guilty than others, that should not be a litmus test for national unity. Difference should not be equated with superiority or inferiority. We strongly reject such advocacy whether implicitly or explicitly expressed.

The PPP is engaging in a very counter-productive course of action that could further setback the quest for national reconciliation. To suggest that Mr Hoyte and Mr Burnham do not belong in the same category as Dr. Jagan is an insult to the supporters of those presidents and the country as a whole. If we are to realise our dream of one nation in which all its components are respected, we have to move beyond petty political differences. In the face of challenges from outside our borders and myriad internal challenges we can ill-afford these manifestations of hyper political tribalism.

Guyana deserves a political maturity that speaks to our oneness without diminishing our diversity and vice versa. Like Dr. Jagan, Mr Burnham and Mr Hoyte are national treasures who, if studied and as part of a common tapestry, could open the eyes of the younger generations to the possibilities of a national ethos. They were political adversaries, not political enemies as the PPP is advocating. The country, including PPP supporters should speak up on this matter.