Dear Editor,
I’ve observed an unsettling undercurrent in the political discourse in Guyana, which, though it encompasses partisan politics, extends more broadly to socio-political conversations about organizing for causes. I intend to address this issue at a macro level in the future. However, I feel compelled to start at the personal level, as we often learn to love individually before we can love collectively.
In a recent broadcast, Dr. Glen Lall responded to an editorial by Abena Rockcliffe (my sister) titled “Guyana Loses in the Short, Medium, and Long Term if ExxonMobil Walks Over Forced Renegotiation.” In his response, he cast several distasteful insults, with the most painful being his claim that he “taught her to think critically.” I can assure you that Abena’s capacity for critical and independent thinking was cultivated by our parents, siblings, teachers, and colleagues, not by Dr. Lall. Other remarks he made were equally painful, leaving friends to ask why he would publicly demean her in this way. Yet, I find them too vile to recount here.
I do recognize Dr. Lall’s advocacy for ExxonMobil to return to the negotiation table as commendable. Any reasonable person can see that Guyana signed an unfavourable deal. However, most Guyanese do not share Dr. Lall’s privilege of substantial wealth or access to vast resources for analyzing the intricacies of the deal and weighing the risks of renegotiation. Neither do they share my sister’s privilege of making a living through research and informed commentary, her editorial was presented as a carefully reasoned perspective, inviting constructive discussion. It was a well ratiocinated piece in contrast to Dr Lall’s attack.
Is Abena right? Is Mr. Norton, or Vice President Jagdeo, or Dr. Lall? None of us can be entirely certain. This situation demands nuanced perspectives from accountants, lawyers, social scientists, journalists, and, importantly, the Guyanese public. Many people work long hours and rely on these insights to form opinions. With that in mind, I might later discuss methodological questions on the data that reportedly shows “94% of respondents favour renegotiation,” including questions about sample validity, response framing, and risk considerations inter alia.
Dr. Lall ignorantly and arrogantly displayed the privilege that is the luxury of a wealthy man. He displayed his inability or unwillingness to grapple with nuance, and his disdain for free-thinking people. He was cruel and insensitive towards her without regard for her humanity or the fact that she is someone’s – wife, daughter, sister and most importantly mother. Would he appreciate those words being spoken about his wife or daughter? I hope he never experiences that. As Abena’s brother it was painful. He hurled unstudied and untruthful epithets and innuendos. And in response to what? A personal attack on his character? An attack on his family? No. A journalist who dared to provide a perspective to the Guyanese people that he disagrees with.
There are other political actors in Guyana who like Dr. Lall are providing yeoman service but are engaging in similar types of despicable name calling and labeling of people with whom they disagree. However, I will approach them with my critique of in private before confronting them in the public space. My piety, and gratitude for their intellectual example, sacrifice and commitment demands that I do so. However, piety is not an uncritical deference to the positions of the elders or exemplars. It is a grateful acknowledgement of their tremendous sacrifice and stewardship. A responsibility to converse with them in private before taking my critique public; and if they are still grand exemplars, they would appreciate thoughtful, measured, honest and respectful disagreements with their positions.
While my sister may not be as quick to forgive Dr. Lall as I am, I believe an apology and retraction would be a good start. A more meaningful contribution from Dr. Lall would be a studied rebuttal to the points she raised in her piece. Could he highlight where her analysis falters and illuminate the Guyanese people? Such an approach could advance the dialogue in the public interest.
Lastly, here’s a question for all of us: if faced with the option to continue under this admittedly bad deal or to press for renegotiation—knowing that there is a real risk of ExxonMobil leaving—what would Guyanese choose?
Humbly,
Brother Ato Kenya Rockcliffe
