CAN WE TALK:
DEATH, INTERMENT AND LEADERSHIP AT THE CROSSROADS
By Aubrey W. Bonnett, PhD
On old year’s eve, Guyana laid to rest one of its political stalwarts,
Desmond Hoyte, a leader for all seasons, a patriot on whom the mantle of
national leadership was thrust in 1985, amidst his own devastating personal
and familial misfortune and the national tragedy of a nation adrift in a sea
of political malaise, economic dysfunctionality and abject social and ethnic
cleavages. Guyana was at a crossroad.
Hoyte was no born leader cut from the traditional mould of fiery labor
leaders or orators with a strong charismatic proclivity, but rather he was a
situational leader who was grounded in reality, had a vision of greatness
for the nation and himself, and though not a scholar/intellectual in the
customary manner, was anchored in pragmatism, lofty ideas and letters and
fascinated with the liberating and egalitarian potential of the rule of law,
of which he was an ardent practitioner. He was also, as my late Dad, a
Linden nee Buxtonian resident would state, “in touch with his ‘roots’ and
empathized with his base”.
During his tenure as Head of State, he attempted to bring stability to
the nation in three main ways. His economic recovery program (ERP) was
designed for both an external and internal audience. Externally, by
signaling to the international lending agencies and external markets that
Guyana was about to shift its economic policies and try to get its economic
house in order. Internally, it sent a strong message to the Indo-Guyanese
commercial sector that he was willing to facilitate their growth, in return,
he thought, for their later political support.
Secondly, he moved internally to bifurcate, somewhat, the party from the
state (remember Odo’s dictum – the paramountcy of the party) and in so doing
moved to sidelines the diehard “Odo” stalwarts by limiting their access to
the power of the state, and indirectly to him, by a process of benign
neglect. Some would argue that this policy went too far to the extent that
it even impacted the former first Lady, Viola Burnham, and lost him the
support of segments of the more influential members of the “moderate ranks”
of the party and its women’s arm- especially overseas. But Hoyte did this to
show that he was his own man and in control of the state apparatus. This
action was also aided by incipient reforms in the civil sector combined with
a reigning in of the police and private “paramilitary” security units then
existing in the country. Externally, and this is salient, his concessions to
electoral reform earned him international plaudits and recognition, and
paved the way for a relatively fair elections which resulted in his demise
from the Presidency- a result which he pragmatically accepted.
Finally, Desmond Hoyte established himself as a supreme regionalist, a
muted political integrationist, and rapidly built his knowledge base by
associating with renowned technocrats and scholars and executing and
implementing policies that effectuated it. Hoyte’s leadership was indeed a
man for all seasons, circa 1992.
Much happened later to sully his reputation, due to some of his own
missteps and failed assumptions, but that analysis is for another time -
suffice it to say that there is no national leader, anywhere, who does not
have his/her Achilles heel - and Hoyte was no exception. He served his
Nation well and will be remembered as the leader who reintroduced fledgling
democratic norms into the society.
And so on Hoyte’s death, the nation finds itself at a leadership
crossroads once again - not only the state mind you, but the nation. In the
aftermath of political sovereignty in the Caribbean, the era of mass
charismatic leaders of the ilk of Bustamante, Manley, Marryshaw, Williams,
Gairy, Burnham/Jagan is over - although there are still some resounding
echoes in Brazil and Venezuela. In Guyana there is no leader, in the state
or the national parties, who can unite the masses by overcoming the
tentacles of racial/ethnic divisions and suspicions. The enmities and
suspicions run deep and the power of countervailing institutions and ideas
(meritocracy, the rule of law, true market economy sine massive corruption,
the liberating role of educational institutions and the media for instance)
are at best limited, in that they are still influenced by agents of the
state or beset by contending imperatives - that of fighting for survival on
the one hand as opposed to taking ethical stances on the other.
What devastated Hoyte, for example, and politically harmed Jagan to a
lesser extent, was their inability to foresee the narrow interests of the
Indo-Guyanese burgeoning capitalist sector. Hoyte felt that by appealing to
that sector’s economic interests they would abandon their ethnic base for
the good of the nation, as he saw it. They did not and Hoyte, feeling
cheated and devastated, reverted “in toto” by appealing to and shoring up
his ethnic base, thereby compounding rather than alleviating the ethnic
malaise in the society.
Earlier Jagan, while lukewarm to the notion of a Caribbean political
federation, was militated against it by the same Indo-Guyanese business
sector which the PPP and Jagan had promised superordinacy in the junior
chamber of commerce then headed by the Portuguese, local whites and the
colored “classes”. That sector was timorous of taking its chances in a
political /economic federation in which they would have been demographically
outflanked. Jagan blinked, and that decision cost him the support of
likeminded ideological stalwarts, Rory Westmaas and Martin Carter for
example, who thought they were more ideologically akin to Jagan than
Burnham, and were surprised by Jagan’s acquiescence to what they reasoned
was sectoral, divisive politics.
What Hoyte’s death now does is to present us with another chance to
become involved and play the leading, if not major, role in a new Caribbean
political, economic and social federation. I have opined on the parameters
of this in an earlier edition of this medium, and contended that this is the
only viable alternative for mini states in the region to make the “small man
a real man”, or to be left behind in the dustbins of political and economic
irrelevancy, fiscal stagnation and political mayhem. It is within this
context that Prime Minister Manning’s of Trinidad recent indications that he
will attempt to pursue such an initiative through Caricom is well worth
noting.
Some may fault me for pursuing this thematic direction at this period and
argue for a full court press on “power sharing” or some variant thereof.
Although I would concede that these positions are not mutually exclusive
ones, I would still contend, as I did earlier, that possession of the mere
political paraphernalia of independence is “pseudo independence”, for no
nation is truly independent. Today rather, the prevailing international
norms are interdependence and robust interconnectedness. Hoyte’s successor,
at this crucial juncture, would ideally extend the positive aspects of his
legacy and serve the nation well at this crossroad by forging ahead on an
agenda of political and regional federation.
It is hoped that both the party (PNC) and the leadership of the state
will eventually see the wisdom of this policy option for the good of the
nation, and so the chaos and confusion that marred Hoyte’s interment would
be replaced by the perseverance, clarity and consensus of a new year’s dawn.
January 1, 2003. IMPACT OPINIONS, IMPACT NEWS. |
