Dear Editor,
Rickford Burke in his letter captioned, ‘My main criticism was that the current PNC leadership has no plan’ (07.11.17) says that the PNC is a multi-ethnic party; thinks I am preaching only to the PNC; believes I support what he calls “Indian triumphalism” and most importantly chooses to ignore my main thesis which is that Guyana cannot evolve into a genuine multiracial democracy unless the ethnic parties first transform themselves into genuine multiracial parties. The topic to be debated: Should the PPP and PNC be allowed to retain the core principle of their ethnic character if they are to play a role in helping Guyana evolve into a genuine multiracial democracy? Shouldn’t activists bring pressure to bear on the ethnic parties (including involving the Western embassies in George-town and the Carter Center) to nudge, even embarrass them into transforming themselves into genuine multiracial parties?
I have stated my ideas in four previous letters published in SN. I now restate them.
(1) Definition of ethnic parties. The PPP and PNC practice an unwritten rule that they can only be led by an Indian and African, respectively. Also, each derives more than 95 percent of their votes from a single ethnic group. Ethnic parties only serve to perpetuate the tradition of ethnic voting for ethnic parties. This practice, I submit, is the definition of ethnic parties and it thwarts any hope of Guyana evolving and developing into a genuine multiracial democracy.
(2) A basic tenet of democratic societies is that the baton of power passes from one party to another every two or three election cycles.
This ebb-and-flow condition will not be satisfied, given the fact that the Indian group has an eight to ten percentage point numerical advantage over the Africans, and given the culture of ethnic voting. The out-of-power group will always feel excluded and alienated. Their disaffection is a potential for political and ethnic violence. Guyana is a very flawed and very imperfect democracy.
(3) A governing majority for any party must comprise of 15-20 percent cross-racial support.
An ethnic party voted into power almost exclusively by one ethnic group in predominantly bi-racial societies has to be considered a violation of the basic principles of democracy.
To remedy this condition, the constitution can be amended to require the winning party to obtain a 15-20 percent cross-racial support or the parties must be willing to reform themselves into genuine multiracial parties “and adopt strategies to win cross-racial support. The former is difficult to implement” and so the onus must be placed on the parties themselves for self-regulation and fulfilment of this requirement.
Societies that practice such extreme forms of ethnic politics as Guyana and Trinidad do pose an unbearable risk to themselves: the perennial risk of political and ethnic violence. It is of paramount importance that ethnic parties assume the responsibility for change.
Burke is still under the illusion that “window-dressing” as a political strategy works in Guyana. (He says the PNC is multi-ethnic, simply because its deputy leader and a few party executives are Indians). Window-dressing does not win cross-racial votes. The ultimate test – and indeed a precondition – to demonstrate their multiracial character is for both the PPP and PNC to elect an African and an Indian to be their respective leaders.
Burke and Ogunseye are too steeped in the perpetuation of ethnic politics and ethnic agitation. Their advocacy will do nothing to help the Afro-ethnic PNC adopt a multiracial character and thus broaden its appeal to win Indian votes. These gentlemen must be branded for what they are, political extremists, who have no need for electoral democracy. Burke is anguished over Raphael Trotman’s defection from the PNC and splitting the African bloc of votes. This for me is a healthy development. I also support the idea of Indians voting for parties other than the PPP. Anything that reduces the high levels of ethnic voting for ethnic parties augurs well for the development for multiracial democracy.
Burke also committed two outrages in the annals of intellectual dishonesty when he said Burnham and PNC rescued Guyana from PPP and racial strife and national destruction in 1964. It is thoroughly documented that Burnham was in cahoots with foreign governments to destabilize Guyana so that what they perceived as the communist PPP must be ousted from power. Once their objective was fulfilled, and Burnham enthroned in power, of course the racial strife and national destruction would end.
Burke said, “Hoyte and PNC brought about so-called restoration of democracy in 1992”.
The scale of electoral fraud by Burnham and Hoyte (1968 to 1985) surpassed those of Marcos and Noriega. The PNC’s real votes in those elections could never have been more than 38-40 percent (as per the proportion of Africans in the population), but they regularly announced much larger victories.
Hoyte, as the head of the government had been the partner in the negotiations with President Carter that produced the agreement for reforms that brought about free and fair elections. How could anyone give credit to the perpetrator for agreeing to end electoral fraud under pressure? Only Burke would and this is what unmasks Burke for what he is, a promoter of ethnic politics. His Caribbean Institute of Democracy, CGID, stands for anything but democracy.
Yours faithfully,
Mike Persaud
