By ret’d Lt. Col Lelon Saul-The recent articles from the Guyana Chronicle, “Exposing Betrayers of African Guyanese on Mash Day 2025” authored by Mr Freddie Kissoon and “Beyond Ethnic Divides: Guyana’s Path to True Social Cohesion,” a letter written by Mr Kit Nascimento, represent two sides of the same problematic coin: one weaponises ethnic essentialism, while the other peddles hollow optimism. Both approaches undermine Guyana’s complex journey toward justice and unity.
The former article’s title alone signals a dangerous premise. By framing Mash Day—a celebration of Guyana’s cultural heritage—as a stage for “exposing betrayers,” the author invokes divisive rhetoric rooted in ethnic purity tests. Such narrative exploits cultural events. Using Mash Day, a symbol of national pride, to stoke intra-community suspicion is cynical. It distracts from meaningful dialogue about equity and representation.
Instead of policing loyalty, we must critique systemic issues—economic disparities, unequal resource allocation—that drive communities apart. Progress requires solidarity, not scapegoating.
The latter article advocates for unity but risks overlooking important realities. Social cohesion cannot be achieved through platitudes alone; superficial analyses, such as vague calls to transcend ethnicity, are insufficient. For example, the marginalisation of Afro-Guyanese in sectors like mining and the underrepresentation of Indo-Guyanese in security forces highlight systemic divides that require structural reforms.
Additionally, Guyana’s colonial legacy and the ethnic politicization, exemplified by the violence of the 1960s, cannot simply be ignored in favour of a superficial “kumbaya” narrative. Genuine reconciliation involves acknowledging past harms and pursuing reparative justice. Unfortunately, Mr. Nascimento seems to prioritise slogans over substantial solutions. Achieving social cohesion demands land reform, equitable job access, and inclusive governance—not just rhetoric.
It is crucial to convey to Messrs. Kissoon and Nascimento that unity cannot be imposed; it must be actively fostered through fair policies that ensure an equitable distribution of developmental benefits and provide equal employment opportunities, among other vital measures. Only through genuine efforts in these areas can we cultivate lasting unity.
Finally, Guyana’s future depends on rejecting deception and superficial unity. Let us pursue justice instead of judgment and cohesion instead of complacency. Both articles fail to acknowledge Guyana’s complexities. The first article deepens divisions, while the second obscures them. We need an honest dialogue to address historical and ongoing inequities, pursue structural reforms, and define a national cultural identity.
