OPINION: Nigel Hughes—rising to the moment, then fading

Last Updated on Sunday, 17 November 2024, 23:07 by Writer

By GHK Lall

Many Guyanese believe that Mr. Nigel Hughes, prominent Attorney-at-Law, has a spark that can flare into something positive for this country. He could inspire jaded local voters, move them to think that he represents something different. I continue to think so, but have my conditions. Mr. Hughes cannot be run-of-the mill, the ‘same ole, same ole’, that has dogged Guyanese and damns them to the dismal existence that they have known under both the PPP and PNC (or whatever it is termed from time to time). Two sets of circumstances were dealt with by Mr. Hughes recently that bear addressing in the frankest terms.

Before proceeding, a little disclosure is necessary, has its value. Nigel Hughes is personally known to me. We have shared platforms. I have even broken bread with him, which puts him in rare company. But in the interests of the skimpy relationship that we have, and a better Guyana, frankness and honesty must take hold. Others are free to do the opposite with their comrades, in their own associations. With that put on the table, it is time to delve into the gist of this sharing. I start with the positive.

A fellow Guyanese put a list of questions to Mr. Hughes. I think that that is healthy. It was even healthier that Mr. Hughes responded. I commend both men, both of whom are brothers, regardless of how I am viewed in their spheres of thinking. Democracy is about discourse, regardless of how the back and forth unfolds, so long as it is civil, follows a principled path. Whether his dozen and a quarter answers are met with approval or acid, the fact is that he did answer. The discussions are sure to follow and could open the door to some of the communication so direly needed in this country. My usual caveat remains: conversations saturated with principle and patriotism, and not solely what is about partisanship and propaganda.

Now, it should not surprise that I have my own ideas on a few of Hughes’ answers. They are not quite along the lines that he drew. Still, it is good that he put pen to paper, or finger to computer and said where he stood. It would also be a positive for Guyana, if other political leaders are similarly zealous in placing their answers to questions before the public, so that the air is cleared or, at least, lightened. Answering enables Guyanese to know where leaders stand, what they are all about, represent at their cores. Answering a question with a question (as is the norm, on occasion) is a practice best left to Talmudic scholars. Guyanese want to know, so rabbinical counters do not provide much by way of clean information. Answering questions or conscientious points raised with abuse, vitriol, and premeditated insolence (or the unleashing of waiting war dogs) is not leadership. Most of such instances represent crimes, pure and simple. If against nothing else, there is the national conscience. And shifting around from figurative foot to foot when faced with pointed resource questions only digs a hole in the ground for the leaders inquired of, which they regularly fall into, doesn’t help one citizen of this struggling Republic. In conclusion: Mr. Hughes did well, however well or poorly, his responses are received.

Then, there’s the negative that came from the second set of circumstances. It has to do with his professional relationship with Exxon. Mr. Hughes is free, has every right, to hold onto his attorney-client relationship. But in doing so, Mr. C. A. Nigel Hughes hedges, promises. Not good enough, sir. What are friends for, if not delivering unpalatable pills. He wins, he relinquished; he loses, he is still profitable. What good is a citizen, if he shrinks from responding to the dictates of conscience, the call of country? I owe Nigel Hughes this frankness, this pointedness. His is the burden of local history.

Political leaders have been prolific with promises. I offer no helping hand today to contemporaries, but the encouragement to my fellow Guyanese is to check for themselves to determine who prospers. To repeat for emphasis: who prospers when politicians make promises? My dear friends among the incumbents promised to do so much with oil, yet today they have lost heart, have no guts, are saddled with conspicuous impotency. Past promises have led nowhere and are stuck there. Guyanese live with their present laments, despair. But Mr. Hughes also promises what he also will do. He may mean well, the best for all others beside himself. But the hanging legacy of his political competitors in the ruling space, and those at his elbows, ties him and taints him. It is his burden to overcome. It would be insurmountable in most places, but here in Guyana, the empty promises of politicians are so embedded in local culture that it may not matter that much for many. It matters to me. But, then again, I am only one.

I talk the language of Mr. Hughes. Good faith. What is conscionable? What is devoid of nuance or artifice or stratagem? The circumstances so necessitate. They would mitigate also. Pull the plug, Mr. Hughes. Make the sacrifice. Today.