Lest we forget, the past remains a harsh reminder

The comment a few weeks ago by the Chairperson of the People’s National Congress (PNC) stating a preference of giving jobs only to supporters of the party, still resonates. An apology was issued and one can argue over its lack of immediacy given the impact such comments can have in a multifaceted and politically polarised society like Guyana.
Another argument can also be made that the chairperson was at the time speaking to party supporters and can be seen as appeasement over their concerns and without malice for wider society. Aside from the social impact, one lesson is the need for leaders to be extremely cognisant of their utterances mindful of national sensitivities and the ubiquitous presence of devices to capture video and audio.
For those who are offended by the statement, history can vindicate their sentiments which can be premised on fear. To understand this, it would be useful to revisit the period of Guyana’s history when party paramountcy consumed everything else. Then, when the PNC ruled, oppression was routine as the prevailing scarcity of basic food items, at least to the masses.
Long lines outside stores, believed to be stocked, were common across the country on a daily basis. Many spent days and were left empty-handed compounding their woes to feed their families. It was heart-wrenching to hear the stories of mothers and fathers, who, despite valiant efforts of queuing up for days in rain and sun, were unable to provide a basic meal.
That was a horrible time but some found it easier; those with PNC party cards. It was like a passport for those privileged ones to access and purchase whatever was available. In many cases, they had more choices than what was made available to those languishing in the long lines.
That reminds of the Knowledge Sharing Institute (KSI) establishments which were managed by the PNC and reportedly were intended, at least through the name, for party indoctrination, but doubled as distribution outlets for basic food items. Similar establishments were operated under the co-op system and again, having a PNC party card made for easy access.
What was also striking is that some who were in charge and who reigned supreme, especially from the co-op managed ones, chose among those without cards to be given access to make purchases. They were allegations of some females forced to offer sexual favours in exchange for such access. What that meant, is that many were forced into humiliation with some, desperate to ease their sufferings, joined the PNC to acquire a party card.
Hard choices had to be made propelled by the cries of hunger especially by children. Those who were known to be supportive of the then Opposition, were targeted and face the brunt of the oppressive power. The security forces were used as tools to carry out their wishes. In many instances, the end results were brutality and incarceration from trumped-up charges.
During that period, there was no ambiguity of the stranglehold the PNC as a party took on the country as jobs and access were primarily for their supporters. That naturally instilled a profound sense of fear in others and cowed many into submission. From a national standpoint, and more than likely to emphasise party supremacy, the PNC flag was hoisted and made to fly higher than the Golden Arrowhead at the Appeal Court in Kingston.
If there was any doubt that one action told the story as there was no longer a separation of powers of the Executive and the Judiciary. That particular fluttering PNC flag epitomised the oppression the party inflicted on the nation. In the minds of many, that is still fresh as is the pain they were forced to bear. For them, that is the fear and pain the recent statement in question would have unearthed. They may have good reason to still worry given some actions since May 2015, including the firing of professional staff mainly from one ethnic group and preferential hiring from another.
There may also be no reason to doubt the genuineness of the apology offered and the explanation that what was unfortunately said is not policy. However, the actions alluded to would be seen as counter to any effort to genuinely dispel fear as it relates to employment. One example is the current composition of Permanent Secretaries which does not reflect the diversity of the country. That strongly suggests that actions have to match the rhetoric especially when it is this Government that established the Social Cohesion Ministry which was groundbreaking and much needed and which raised expectations of all in the endeavour for national cohesion.
Based upon what that Ministry has done so far, there is need to be convinced of the mandate as intended and what was sold to the public. That strongly implies that much more needs to be done and those entrusted with national responsibilities remain aware how they can contribute to the rupturing of the social fabric. While all have a role to play, the onus generally falls on the Government of the day to genuinely lead the process. Lest we forget, the past remains a harsh reminder.