A big part of what is needed in Guyana is to incorporate the practice of civility into the body politic. And in the context of this need let us consider the life and example of one of the most sensible, open-minded and civilized men who ever lived. Anton Chekhov, born in 1860, became a physician and practiced his profession devotedly. But he also turned himself into one of Russia’s greatest writers. In a wonderfully creative life of just 44 years he divided his time between “medicine … my legitimate wife and literature … my mistress.” He wrote perfect stories of glittering clarity and his plays – the famous Uncle Vanya, The Seagull and The Cherry Orchard among others – that revolutionized the theater of his day and provided vivid insights into the generations that follow how men and women suffer and exult, love and hate, in living even the most mundane and uncomfortable lives: “People,” Chekhov noted, “eat their lunch, just eat their lunch, and meanwhile their happiness shapes or their lives destroyed. ”
As a physician, Chekhov tended thousands of peasants at a clinic on his estate, planning and helping build schools, endowing libraries, and scraping money and support for a host of other causes. This direct involvement in daily exercises made him disgraceful of all or nothing recipes for global salvation. He was once accused of writing a story that lacked “ideology.” “But isn’t the story,” replied Chekhov, “protesting from lying to the end? Isn’t that an ideology? ”
In a famous letter to a journal editor who had begun to publish his work he outlined his belief: “I am not a liberal, nor a conservative, nor a graduate, nor a monk, nor apathy. I would like to be a free artist and nothing else. …… Pharisaism, dulwittedness, and oppression reign not only in the homes of traders and police stations. I see them in science, in literature, and among the younger generation. That’s why I’m not building any specific predictions for policemen, butchers, scientists, writers or the younger generation. I look at tags and labels as prejudices. My sacred holies are the human body, health, intelligence, talent, inspiration, love and… freedom from violence and lies, no matter what the last two are. ”
What shines in Chekhov’s life is his humane humanity, the allowance he gave for people’s weaknesses and foibles, the understanding he showed about beliefs he did not share, the respect he cultivated for other personalities, his disposition to seek arrangements that brought out the best in all he encountered.
Would the spirit of Anton Chekhov preside in the midst of the tense debates taking place in Guyana. The civility in which he stood all his life will have to overcome such arguments. And in this connection my thesaurus gives a wide range of words and expressions related to civility: common courtesy, considerate attention, graciousness, courtesy, tactics, diplomacy, amiability, obligation, helpfulness, compatibility, kind words, generosity of spirit , respect, attentiveness, good temper, amity, peacefulness, fair thinking – to name a few. A tall order, to say the least, in the context of Guyana.
On all sides the effort must be made to hold a civil debate. Losses of election cannot expect miracles of abrupt and comprehensive national accommodation or, however, whether they want to basically wait for more than lip service to concessions.
On the other hand, I have no doubt that the main burden of trying to incorporate elements of permanent accommodation will fall on the election winners. They have to take the major initiatives, show the greater magnanimity, rise above reprimands and never seek refuge in majority doubt.
And, of course, it is the leader of the winning party who has the primary responsibility, by far, to ensure that the accommodation process does not relax. It will not be easy. It will be very difficult. The personal qualities required are by no means universal: the ability to forget past opposition and even insult, the ability to allay hurt feelings and disappointing hopes which, left unattended, may harden to enduring hostility, the willingness to take responsibility for and correct the failures and bad thinking of subordinates, the inability to share credit comfortably, the largeness of the spirit it takes to readily admit mistakes and learn from it ‘ r those mistakes, the decision to find the time to keep going over and over again. That is all difficult but not impossible if the President wishes to leave a great endowment.