In a letter to SN January 13, Dr. Kwesi Sansculotte-Greenidge the need and possibility of a political solution to Guyana’s ethno-political problems through constitutional restructuring. The proposals, which would find many supporters, spread on victim narratives from Guyana’s two main ethnic groups, which are fueling a relentless pursuit of supremacy. This evil, not satanic evil, is evident in the nature of organized political activity in Guyana and is responsible for Guyana’s ethno-political dilemma.
The PNC, which is African-dominated, has held political office for 33 years. And yet some African advocates complain that Africans continue to be disadvantaged despite Africa’s superior, historic contributions to Guyana’s development, they claim. Some suggest that positive action, such as fast-track distribution to Africa, is justified in the circumstances. Others are plundering the PPP for the marginalization of Africans and blocking their access to Guyana’s wealth, which is controlled by Indians. Indian advocates complain that between 1968 and 1992 they were fraudulently deprived of political power, that they suffered intense discrimination during the PNC’s unlawful grasp of power, that their foods were banned, that they, even that, having repeatedly suffered political violence, they were excluded from access to educational and public service opportunities, that the rice industry was destroyed and that the sugar industry was plundered and destroyed by the sugar levy. The 2020 events will undoubtedly reinforce some of those views. Sociological and cultural differences run deep.
After two decades of “socialism” and a national emphasis on the rights and benefits of trade unionist-led workers, Africa’s access to wealth emerged as another layer to the narrative. It began during the Hoyte government (1985-1992) when some referred to Desmond Hoyte as Desmond “Persaud,” highlighting his government’s support for Indian businessmen. That narrative intensified during the PPP administrations (1992-2015) to the effect that only Indians have opportunities to accumulate wealth, especially through government contracts.
It appears that three different vocal demands have emerged from African voices – that Africans must have equal access to opportunities to accrue as Indians, that people working in Africa must have equal access to jobs, housing, education and health, and that discrimination and marginalization must end. India’s vocal perspectives seem to focus on the needs of the sugar and rice industries, security and security, cultural protection and, when APNU is in power, no political and ethnic discrimination.
Our political history since Independence in 1966 has revealed that ethno-political supremacy would not create political stability or security, but would not, however, be thrown off voluntarily by either major political party. To abandon the narratives derived from victimology is to abandon the human instinct for security and survival in a sub-optimal polity where electoral success is rejected as a legitimate, democratic determinant, but where any other determinant is acceptable. The recalculation generated by notions of illegality stemming from historical, cultural and political differences, intensified by fifty years of the struggle for ethno-political supremacy, is the reason for the problem’s resistance to solution, though despite the constitutional decisions in Suriname and Northern Ireland. Trinidad and Tobago have an ethnic composition and a similar cultural and colonial history to ours. But his politics evolved differently. Eric Williams remained in power for about two decades with important Indo-Trinidadian allies. There has never been a Cold War issue and no inter-ethnic violence. The two main parties today alternate in office due to a large floating vote.
Guyana missed the opportunity for a political solution in 2011. But the grip of the narrative was too strong. He restricted the PPP from seeking a coalition government when it was the only reasonable thing to do, after being returned with a minority. The constitution allowed the PPP to form the government. But the instinct for supremacy was so strong that it fostered a completely unrealistic belief that it could sustain itself in office with the support of the Opposition through goodwill and rational discourse. How does one conclude that a minority government can survive, or possibly be returned to office, unless it shares power, or receives support in return for something? Where does that happen? Had the PPP formed a coalition with APNU, Donald Ramotar would now have been in the final year of his second term, pondering over his achievements in an important era.
The PPP adopted collective governance in 1978 and promoted it until 1991. After it won the 1992 elections, PPP’s victory and hostility killed PNCR. Around 2001, Hoyte adopted joint governance but by then it was too late. A new President was in office, eager to make his mark. A ray of hope reappeared in 2015 when APNU + AFC included detailed proposals for joint governance in its manifesto. After realizing that he might have to play an inferior role to the PPP after future elections where he could possibly lose his one-seat majority, he gave up his manifesto pledge. Dr. Sansculotte-Greenidge is right about the need for constitutional restructuring, but the possibility? It’s not about to happen any time soon.