Dear Editor,
The problem we Guyanese have amongst ourselves is how to gain or maintain a sense of balance between one’s personal and the interests of the wider society. I agree, it is easier said than done.
In everyday Guyanese politics, commentary or otherwise, we often hear references to balance of interests between those who may be equal in strength but acting in opposite directions (China and the USA); balance of budget and expenditure; balance in diet; balance of power between the executive, judiciary and the parliament; balance in acting and presentation; balance between the eco-system and nature and in some cases, balance of the mental state of one’s political opponent.
In effect, a sense of balance is a judgmental matter. In other words, balance comes into play when deciding what is right and what is wrong. But the fundamental question is; how much attention, if any at all, do we Guyanese pay to balance between what I need and what I want in our everyday life? That is the question.
The seriousness of balance in this matter is to be found in the constant harping by sections of society about how often and much of the ‘oil money’ should the state put in the pockets of every Guyanese as against how much the state should invest in social and physical infrastructure. The familiar question here is, has a balance been struck between who gets what, how much and how frequent is the largesse disposed to the satisfaction of both people and government? Economists with an interest in this matter should publicly debate this as a matter of public interest.
Of greater significance is balance within the meaning of the rule of law. Had it not been for the Courts, irrespective of whether a criminal, civil or constitutional matter was before it for judicial review, or a ruling on what was right from what was wrong, it’s impact on our individual or collective existence and that of society as a whole.can be turned upside down, making it unbalanced, if not chaotic.
That is why balance or maintaining equilibrium plays such an important, if not critical role in keeping society together notwithstanding the occasional individual irritant or political upheaval that occur from time to time.
Such occurrences sometimes appear to threaten that balance but never breaks it because it is kept in place by a mixture of conceptual phenomena, tangibles and intangibles related to the economic base and superstructure.
A good example of where balance was to be found was in the case where a ferry sank and people drowned with it. The clamour for justice is in effect a call for balance, that balance was struck when a decision was made to establish a Commission of Inquiry, but the balance was threatened by imbalance when negatives fed on emotions and exploited the human tragedy making both the COI and the recovery of the ferry appear as if they were unduly delayed by the state in the eyes of the people.
Moreover, take the issue of the Cuban Medical Brigade, was its dismantlement good or bad for Guyana and it’s people? Who ultimately benefited from its dismantlement and who were the losers from its dismantlement? Was there a balance between cause and effect in the decision making process?
From my Chinese Comrades and friends, I learnt about a popular Chinese board game known as Go. The game is said to reflect the meaning of life. I was told that the intrigues of the game is that there are a number of potential moves – more, it is said, than all the particles in the known Universe. Think about balance and what keeps planet earth and the rest of the universe in a state of balance without any cataclysmic clashes occurrences.
Forbes Burnham used to say that “politics is the art of making deals” it seems as though President Trump shares that belief. Other democratically inclined politicians like Cheddi Jagan would claim that whosoever aims for the highest office in the land are expected like players of Go to adhere to a philosophy demanding high levels of intelligence, intuition and imagination. Whether Burnham or Jagan apart from being branded (or not) as champions of one era or another, the fact of the matter is, in the eyes of their respective followers, they were public celebrities. That’s balance …. at least perceptively
Yours faithfully,
Clement J. Rohee
Discussion