Much has been said, and will continue to be said, about Robert Corbin since his passing on October 4. Today, I take the opportunity to reflect on the man I knew-a man who, despite political differences and disagreements, remained civil, respectful and willing to engage others without hostility.
In a political culture where disagreement is increasingly treated as disloyalty, where independent thought can invite personal attacks, and where too many confuse power with authority, Corbin demonstrated that one could hold firm convictions without surrendering the basic principles of respect and decency.
I first met Robert Corbin in 1968 in Linden, while he was campaigning to become General Secretary of the youth arm of his party, the People’s National Congress (PNC). We discussed several issues, agreeing on some and disagreeing on others. Yet, our differences did not prevent the development of a relationship that continued over the years.
On our second occasion of meeting in Kwakwani, Corbin had already secured his position in the Young Socialist Movement. Our engagement continued for a number of years, and I had reason to telephone him on several occasions during his time in the PNC Government and later as Leader of the Opposition.
One of Corbin’s strengths was his willingness to listen. Regardless of our differences, he would sit, listen intently to what was being said, and, when the appropriate time came, offer his response. He was a keen and intense listener, so much so that some might have mistaken his silence for disengagement. Those who knew him understood otherwise.
I listened to Corbin’s responses to presentations made in his capacity as Leader of the Opposition. On occasions when he visited me at the Guyana Trades Union Congress (GTUC) to discuss issues of common nature he would suggest that we continue our discussions in an informal and cordial setting. He understood that meaningful engagement did not always require a public platform, a confrontation or an audience.
Although Corbin and I, and at times leaders of the trade union movement, disagreed on issues, he was never discourteous in his dealings with us. He did not appear to carry grudges simply because another person held an independent position. That is a quality worth remembering, particularly in a society where too many public engagements have deteriorated into personal attacks and political hostility.
I want to believe that Corbin’s disposition was shaped not only by the family that raised him with what we call “grace and manners,” but also by the political culture in which he was nurtured.
Those of us who have been active in national life since the 1980s can recount countless instances of public disagreement with the political establishment, whether in government or opposition. Differences were not absent then, nor were political struggles without their difficulties. But the degree of personalised hostility that increasingly characterises political engagement today was not accepted by all as an honourable or necessary feature of public service.
There was an understanding that one could disagree with the government, challenge the opposition, defend workers’ interests or advance an independent position without automatically becoming a personal enemy. Political office did not relieve anyone of the obligation to respect others, and disagreement did not have to destroy the possibility of dialogue.
Corbin belonged to that tradition, and those characteristics remained evident in his conduct until the end.
During my last telephone conversation with Robert, we discussed our concerns about the declining conditions in our country and the growing intolerance in our national life. As was his nature, he listened attentively, interjected where necessary and offered his perspective. He impressed upon me that the circumstances confronting us represented challenges associated with Guyana’s politics, while encouraging me to stay the course and continue the fight.
Those words resonated with me because the struggle for workers’ rights, social justice, dignity and accountability does not end when the political circumstances become difficult. The trade union movement has a responsibility to continue speaking out, defending the rights of workers and challenging conditions that undermine the welfare of our people. That responsibility cannot be abandoned simply because the road ahead is difficult.
Corbin was a man, with the shortcomings that come with being human. I do not pretend that we agreed on everything or that he was without imperfections. But I can speak to my experience: he was civil and cordial in his engagements with me and with the trade union movement. He understood that disagreement was part of public life and that respect for another person’s right to hold a different view was essential.
Today, Robert Corbin’s work on earth is done. His passing provides an opportunity not merely to remember the political offices he held, but to reflect on the personal qualities he demonstrated and the value of preserving civility in our national discourse.
May his soul rest in eternal peace.
I extend my condolences to his wife, Carol, his children, other family members, and the People’s National Congress, the party he led and called his political home.
Farewell, warrior. May your contribution to Guyana’s political life, and the memory of the man who could disagree without disrespect, endure.
