By Kiana Wilburg
When Dr. Irfaan Ali was elected President of the Co-operative Republic of Guyana in August 2020, there were weighty expectations from his own political camp as well as the electorate. There were for example, expectations about how his legacy should take shape, the social issues he should champion, and the forward-thinking strategies he should implement to leave his mark in history. In that abyss of hopes and demands, the man himself would naturally have some idea about how he would like to be remembered as a leader.
When he assumed office, it was clear to the Head of State that he was in charge of leading Guyana during an unprecedented period of her history. In February 2021, Ali gave Guyanese insight into one of the guiding principles for his presidency during the formative years of oil-rich Guyana. In his address to parliament he said, “As the President of Guyana and the Head of Government, my credo and the credo of this Government is ‘Nation Building.’ The key word of my Government is ‘oneness.’ The essential character of my Government’s vision is ‘inclusion.’ Stop being defined by race. Stop being defined by politics. Start being defined by our one nationality, and by our common love for our one country.” This marked the birth of his “One Guyana” mantra.
In his parliamentary speech, President Ali also proposed to give meaning to his call for “One Guyana” by requesting the Leader of Government Business in the National Assembly, Prime Minister, Brigadier (rtd) Mark Phillips, to introduce, for adoption, an Act of Parliament establishing a “One Guyana Commission” which he will head. That parliamentary body was envisioned to address education concerning our history and our religions, ensuring equal opportunities for education, employment and entrepreneurship, and the institutional strengthening of the existing Ethnic Relations Commission to make it more effective. Four years later, that One Guyana Commission is still outstanding, but let us not promenade in that hallway just yet.
In the years that would follow, “One Guyana” would evolve in its purpose. Today, it represents the president’s promise, a social contract if you will, to overcome racial and political differences while creating an environment for all to achieve prosperity. In an effort to ensure this mantra is entrenched in the national psyche, One Guyana has became part of the names of basketball, football and other sporting competitions. There are branded pens, cups, notebooks, t-shirts, and even billboards across the country that remind of the president’s promise for a more unified Guyana. There is also the most recent introduction of a One Guyana Digital School.
For the most part, many Guyanese have not lodged any major protest against the extent of the One Guyana branding exercise, except for one instance. About three weeks ago, it came to the public’s attention that the One Guyana mantra was incorporated into the recently introduced 10-year Guyana passports. Many Guyanese were quick to disagree with this approach. One letter writer this past week stressed, “A country’s passport is not a political billboard but a sovereign document that belongs to all its citizens, supporters and non-supporters alike.” APNU+AFC Member of Parliament (MP) Amanza Walton Desir also expressed objection. She dubbed the move a dangerous overreach, adding that it attempts to blur the lines between national identity and political allegiance.
Desir further noted that this act potentially flies in the face of international standards, especially those set by the International Civil Aviation Organisation (ICAO) in Document 9303, which provides strict guidelines for passport design. “ICAO’s emphasis on neutrality, global interoperability and non-discriminatory practices implicitly prohibits the inclusion of partisan political messaging,” she contended.
During his programme “Issues in the News”, Attorney General Anil Nandlall pointed out that the concept of “One Guyana” is not a political slogan.
Nandlall stated, “I have never seen this slogan emanate out of Freedom House. I have never seen the People’s Progressive Party (PPP) promote the concept of One Guyana. I know the Government of Guyana has been promoting it but not the PPP/C party and a government is free to formulate any logo, any slogan intended to capture its ethos and this government’s ethos is national unity.”
Whether One Guyana is a party slogan or not, it is the President’s mantra, by his admission. And nothing is wrong with that. However, this author believes that a passport should not be seen as taking a side in domestic politics; it ought to be neutral and free from any political taglines, no matter how noble the cause. One can surely understand the importance of President Ali’s movement, but shouldn’t we use national symbols, songs, mottos, and the like in our sovereign documents?
For argument’s sake, will the “One Guyana” branding in Guyanese passports help to achieve its initially stated objective, overcoming racial and political differences while creating an environment for all to achieve prosperity?
Make no mistake, there are political and racial divisions within our society, some akin to hairline fractures, others as deep as submarine volcanoes. This author has often wondered why there has never been a series of targeted national conversations on these divisions followed by their outcome reports and recommendations that were actioned over a period of time. Why too has there not been town hall meetings, or even a presidential debate on how deep these toxins lie and what strategies can be implemented to bring about real healing. This author believes that any effort at authentic nation-building has to, at some point, look the racial monster in the eye, identify its fanatics and agitators and begin the real work from there, whatever form that takes.
Many leaders, Ali included, have acknowledged the need for nation-building, especially at a time when Guyana’s best years of wealth accumulation and distribution could be well ahead of her. But, efforts at nation-building have to be pragmatic, they have to go beyond the cosmetic approach. A candid national conversation or series in this regard, led by the “One Guyana Commission”, could mark the first real step in unpacking historical pains and beginning the real work of truth-telling and healing.
A complementary approach could also , for example, target unemployed and or single parent men and women, disadvantaged youth, thereby linking strategic but measurable development programmes to the One Guyana brand. The One Guyana brand could also benefit from its own educational initiatives. This could see its ambassadors or officers going to various communities or even schools to share strategic messages about the importance of nation building and the contributions of our ancestors.
This author is confident that a national conversation could certainly solicit even more impactful ideas which can help One Guyana achieve its intended purpose. But in a sovereign document, the slogan, while incredibly important, misses the mark on being helpful to its intended cause.
