The opposition should be more thoughtful the second time around

Dear Editor,

Now that the President has found the list of names submitted by the opposition for chairmanship of Gecom unacceptable, I feel that it is timely and appropriate to offer a few comments.

First, I thought the composition of the list was provocative. My initial reaction was that this list was submitted to be rejected. How could it not be, given some of the parties embedded?

Second, and as if to confirm early misgivings, when the list was lobbed to the President, he quickly volleyed back by asking for CVs for the associated names. While they were not exactly household names, they were not unknowns either. But here was the President saying, in effect, I want to review and probe the pedigree of these folks. I saw trouble brewing.

Third, apparently what was analyzed was found to lack depth, strength, and an indefinable solidity. Quite frankly, in some respects, that list was insulting to the President, as well as the Guyanese people. As an ordinary citizen on the periphery I was alternately humoured, angered, and lastly disbelieving. The list just did not fly, or make any substantial impression at first or thereafter.

Fourth, I thought that most of the people lacked the requisite credentials; those who had some credentials lacked standing; those with standing lacked credibility; and those with credibility lacked the musculature. Altogether, there was a noticeable absence of the formidable fibres that are required for this gruelling, mind-bending, nerve-shattering job.

Fifth, from my perspective, there were the soft, the timid, the uncertain, and the unable amongst the lot. In the cracking, combustible crucibles that are Guyana’s elections I find it extremely difficult that most of the six could stand up, hold ground, and deliver. Let this be put another way: when the baying stalking political hounds from Guyana Elections hell are lunging for the jugular, whose sinews can hold hard? Which one among the half dozen possesses the mental resilience and stamina to think straight and cleanly and constructively in the slippery treacherous cliffhangers that have characterized the dangerously jagged post-voting process?

Sixth, it only adds to the personal turbulence amidst the seething national cauldron when the very party that nominated stands with expectations and demands of the chairperson, whoever he or she is. Historically, those expectations and demands have conflicted with reality and accuracy. In these nightmarish scenarios visited and revisited quinquennially in this country, I submit that I find the odds unacceptable that the strength of character, the determination to stand firm, and the willingness to power ahead for right would have been there. After all, the destiny of a nation is usually at stake.

Seventh, I trust that the opposition will be more serious and more thoughtful the second time around; and that the list this time will be more formidable in appearance and in substance.

Last, the President in his quite, patient, and meticulous manner keeps sending a clear signal: a judge for a kingdom. There is nothing subtle about his position. A real opposition would do just that and tie his hands.

Yours faithfully, GHK Lall