Dear Editor,
Mr. Tacuma Ogunseye’s captioned, “A multi-racial front against the government is not possible,” (07.10.02) raised an important issue that needs some serious debate that is, what approach the long overdue and inevitable mass protest action against the increasingly undemocratic nature of the current PPP administration should take. Mr. Ogunseye argues that “Indian Guyanese who have traditionally voted for the PPP/C, in spite of their concerns that the regime is taking Guyana down a most dangerous path, are reluctant to take any action that has the potential of altering the status quo. By default therefore, this responsibility falls on the backs of the African Guyanese community.” Mr. Ogunseye further argues that this failure to organize a multiracial opposition has forced African Guyanese in the past to take a singular ethnic approach in confronting the PPP/C regime. That approach has created a backlash for African Guyanese organizing, based on the argument from Indian Guyanese and others, that such action poses a threat to the security of the Indian person and businesses, and the society. Mr. Ogunseye, while recognizing the importance of multiracial action, concluded that, “Those who see multi-racial struggle as the only viable approach to Guyana’s political problem have to come to grips with the fact that no struggle is our worst option or, to put it another way, it is a non-option.”
No rationalist can disagree with Mr. Ogunseye’s conclusion, if, multiracial struggle in Guyana was indeed an approach. However, since the virtual disintegration of the Working People’s Alliance, genuine multi-racial political struggle has largely been absent from Guyana’s political landscape. This I am sure Mr. Ogunseye would agree with. So what obtained in the past was political action directed by the PNCR based on single ethnic mobilization. The result was that legitimate protest action degenerated into attacks on Indian Guyanese perceived to be supporters of the ruling party. As such those ill-strategized actions not only alienated Indians and solidified their support for the PPP/C regime, they also created a reluctance by African Guyanese in large numbers to engage in protest actions against the regime, hence the difficulty that exists in organizing protest action by some parts of the trade union movement and particularly the PNCR.
So the reality in Guyana’s contemporary political milieu is that there is no genuine multi-ethnic approach to political struggle, and as such it would be premature to discount the need for such action. Multi-ethnic political struggles in the context of Guyana bring into focus three fundamental expectations; legitimacy, strategy and purpose. Legitimacy in that a struggle is deemed legitimate by the masses if it is seen as dealing with the interests of the plurality; strategy is contextualized in the effectiveness of political struggle to target the object of the grievances (PPP administration) rather than those perceived to be complacent participants in the grievances (supporters); and purpose relates to the mission to transform the racial nature of the political economy.
Although one can argue from a moral perspective the importance for multi-racial struggle, one cannot disagree with Mr. Ogunseye that no struggle is our worst option and therefore is a non-option. Ethnic groups have a fundamental right to struggle against oppression, injustice, inequality and marginalization. While we agree on the need for political agitation against what is a consensus, PPP/C’s authoritarian attitude with racial overtones to governance, we can also agree that ACDA as an African organization has every right, and should seek to organize African Guyanese for struggle against racial policies. On the other hand political parties must take care to confront issues from a multi-racial perspective. Sensibly, the goal of the political party is to win a plurality.
It is my contention, that there have not been efforts to mobilize a multi-ethnic approach to confront the illiberal tendencies of the Jagdeo administration. This is evident in the weakness of oppositional politics in Guyana.
The AFC positioned itself as the multiracial-agent of change in the last elections, and in the process gained unprecedented access as a third party to the political space. It has since contented itself with operating within largely an ineffective and inadequate parliamentary system to effect such change. Thus the AFC itself has become ineffective.
The PNCR which is supposed to be a national political party is seemingly content with pursuing the traditional ethnic politics. The problem with this type of politics (what I call stupid politics) is that, in a sharply ethnically divided sovereignty such as ours, the minority remains in the opposition perpetually. Some have concluded that the PNCR as an African based party has no chance of winning national elections and as such have begun to argue most earnestly for executive power sharing. Let me hasten to say that there are two types of advocacy for power sharing in and out of Guyana. One that has its origin in a defeatist PNC/African based politics and the other which sees power sharing (joined exercise of power) as a solution for resolving ethnic majoritarianism in a Westminster system with the potential for conflict. The difference between the two theses is that the latter is not based on defeatism but recognizes that a win at the polls by any of the two major parties would result in ethnic privileges, power and positions, which is a recipe for conflict and continued underdevelopment.
Leaving the AFC out of this analysis for now the PNCR, with a greater resource base, is the largest opposition to the ruling party and as such must seek to develop a strategy to attract the growing numbers of disaffected Indian Guyanese. The PNC cannot continue to assume that after fifteen years of PPP/C misrule some Indian Guyanese are not looking for an alternative. The fact is the PNCR has not presented itself to those disaffected Guyanese as an attractive alternative.
A keen analysis of the results of the 2006 elections shows the vulnerability of the PPP/C. An invincible political party does not win elections with 37% of the popular vote. The problem is that the opposition is so disorganized that the incumbent can beat them with even 37% of the popular vote. We have to throw out of the window the presumption of the traditional Indian vote. There is a reason many Indian Guyanese as well as African Guyanese stayed away from the polls in 2006. More than fear, it was because of the lack of an attractive alternative to the PPP/C.
Perhaps the disaffected Indian Guyanese are waiting to be organized and to be included in the political struggle. Has there been any attempt to organize them? Furthermore has any political party as a matter of strategy inserted itself in Indian dominated neighborhoods to address with urgency the issue of crime, a main concern for Indians, or is it that the PNC in particular, concedes that issue to the incompetence of the ruling party. The fact is sound strategies win votes and thus elections.
Yours faithfully,
Dennis Wiggins
