Dear Editor,
Ian was one of my best friends. This may surprise many. For many reasons except one, humanitarianism, we were poles apart.
He was neither a temperamental nor pompous man, he had unconventional charm. Like any virtuoso, there was an undeniable continuity of his literary work. As a prolific writer he made sense to many and nonsense to those who knew little or nothing about poetry and classical literature. He was proficient in interpreting the thinking of 19th century philosophers.
Ian was a consistently successful man. He was not one known to complain endlessly nor to engage in incessant whining to become mentality burdensome on anyone. Like the Rastaman, he always espoused ‘positive vibrations.’
Years ago, I became attracted to Ian McDonald’s weekly morning radio broadcast ‘Viewpoint by Ian McDonald.’ I do not know why I was attracted to his broadcasts. However, later, I discovered that many of the references he made in his broadcasts belonged to the era of classical English literature and Greek mythology as well as Guyanese writers and poets whose names appeared in books Janet Jagan lent me from time to time and encouraged me to read. But that’s not all. While working as a party ‘apparatchik’ at Freedom House, headquarters of the PPP, I learnt that Cheddi Jagan, then Opposition Leader, was an avid listener to Ian’s Viewpoint broadcasts. That struck me as interesting having regard to the incessant critiquing of Jagan, branded at that time as an unrepentant communist’. What bothered me was, what did this ‘communist’ Jagan learn from listening to Ian McDonald? But it was more than that, on several occasions I would hear Dr. Jagan ask his secretary to call Mr McDonald. While on the phone a lively conversation on sugar or on a matter of public interest would follow.
When the PPP/C led by Dr Jagan won the general and regional elections in October 1992 Ian was one of the firsts to congratulate him. Up to that time, I never met Ian in person. It was not until I was assigned the foreign trade and international cooperation portfolio in 2001, that I met Ian in person. It was not the first nor last meeting. Ian and I along with Nisa Surujbally worked together during those difficult years when the European Union began engaging the African, Pacific and Caribbean (ACP) sugar producing countries first to review the sugar protocol, then to dismantle and replace the preferential trading arrangements between the EU and ACP with a more disadvantageous one.
Ian was a lateral thinker, always advancing novel proposals and solutions that were the product of long deliberations. We engaged in discussion for hours in the course of which there were disagreement and compromises on how to approach negotiations with the EU and within the ACP group as well as with other sugar producing countries like Brazil and India. The goal of our deliberations was consensus.
To find solutions that we Guyanese could live with, even if they were imperfect, simply because they had to fit into a multilateral setting at the WTO I recall on one occasion, Ian shared with me his view that in the course of human history, people made decisions through consensus. That it was perhaps the most conspicuous feature of political life in a democracy. I attested to that view having participated in consensus-based decision-making myself during my entire political life. Ian held the view that as a young nation, Guyana has much to learn from a political form shaped by years of trial and error. He posited that by examining how consensus is achieved, Guyanese can develop better strategies to solve the problems we face as a nation.
Thanks to my regular formal and informal meetings with and guidance from Ian, I became very knowledgeable of the sugar industry in Guyana, the Caribbean and in other sugar producing countries around the world. When Caricom Heads of Government assigned me the region’s spokesperson for sugar at the WTO. Ian was with me all the way. Ian’s role and style of leadership in preparation for our negotiations was knowledge-based, thorough and encouraging. He refrained from stating his opinion early in the conversation, which could bias the opinions of others who were yet to speak. He saw his role as a participant in the group to guide our deliberations, to assess the group’s mood, and help finalise a decision. Because of that attribute he did not resort to sapiential authority. Even after I was reassigned the portfolio of Home Affairs in 2006, Ian and I maintained contact. Our friendship never faded.
The last time I engaged Ian was in a letter responding to his concerning the philosophy of Arthur Schopenhauer (1788-1860). From association with Ian I learnt that success in negotiations comes from material interdependence, common purpose and shared meaning. Also critical were his references to the conversational guardrails that enable us to truly think while aiming at consensus. This he advised, is ancient knowledge that can be put into practice. Ian cautioned against engaging in heated exchanges, to detach ideas from ego, to put yourself in others’ shoes, and to listen. Above all, to always speak your mind. That was the Ian McDonald I knew. Condolences to his wife Mary, and the family.