Before he died just over two years ago, Dr. Cedric Grant told me at the home of Mr. Desmond Hoyte that he had planned to convene a conference on conflict analysis in the context of Guyana. In fact, he subsequently sent the concept paper to me through Mr. Hoyte.
Dr. Grant might have noticed my initial skepticism and sought to assure me that even though Guyana was a fractured and torn country there was no harm in seeking to apply to the Guyana situation methodologies that had been applied at Clark University where he was teaching.
It is for this reason, among others, that I wish to record my appreciation for his commitment to seeing a resolution of the manifold difficulties which have confronted Guyana for more than 50 years. Dr. Grant had seen and understood how governments work ‘from the inside’ and he knew how problematic it is to govern a country as complex as Guyana. Yet, he never shrunk from the task of trying to find solutions. His optimism was born of a profound understanding of the political, economic and social realities of Guyana.
In like manner Dr. Mark Kirton must be complemented for assisting Dr. Grant in this endeavor. What they have done is advance the search for a solution to the problems of this country, a task that that must be continually pursued if Guyana is ever to realise the potential that has been evident from its birth.
Grant and Kirton combined their talents and gifts for organization and bringing together gifted individuals, academics and reputable international organizations to convene a conference on Governance, Conflict Analysis and Conflict Resolution in Guyana in January 2004.
The conference itself was an early victim of the conflictual situation in Guyana, or, as Cedric Joseph put it (p. 327):
“It would appear, that whatever date was scheduled, it was highly probable that the conference on “Governance, Conflict Analysis and Conflict Resolution” would be convened amidst or alongside some conflict, so much has conflict been with us.”
Indeed, the PPP administration registered some hostility to the conference and requested or suggested that papers be submitted to it for what could only be assumed to be ‘vetting.’ This was rejected. The PPP therefore decided not to participate in the conference and merely sent Foreign Minister, Dr. Rudy Insanally, to deliver the opening address. The conference, nevertheless, proceeded and from all that I have read, the various papers presented at that forum are of the highest quality and the debates and contributions of the highest order.
The result is a book of substantial proportions. It is 494 pages in length; it is divided into eight parts; and the headings of each part provide an indication of the intent and purpose of the publication.
Part I is confined to Governance and Management in a Global Context; Part II deals with Management and Resolution of Conflict in the regional context: Part III examines perspectives on social stratification, political rivalry and ethnic insecurities; Part IV puts High intensity conflicts under the microscope; Part V is devoted to The management and resolution of territorial conflicts; Part VI devotes consideration to Poverty, economics and conflict management; Part VII analyses the effect of Advancing conflict resolution through education: and Part VIII is a study of Civil society, governance and social consensus.
A galaxy of academic talent graces the pages of this book, a condition that guarantees both intellectual and practical interest in its contents. Well-known international personalities such as Bertrand G. Ramcharan, Rashleigh Jackson, Cedric Joseph, Hugh Cholmondley and Tyrone Ferguson all make significant contributions to the overall effort.
A reviewer, inevitably. has to choose. And this book, in my judgment – given the fact that the conference was convened in Guyana and against a background of recent domestic conflict- should have been confined to examining how the concepts of governance, conflict analysis and conflict resolution can be used instruments to ensure sharp focus on the particular problems of this country. Instead, the conveners of the conference and the editors of the book have opted to paint with a much broader brush and have embraced such issues as the significance of mediation of the OAS in Haiti, the conflict in Fiji and the role of third-party mediation in the Indo-Pakistan conflict. All of these have implications for the management of conflict both within and without the borders of Guyana. However, in reading the book I was temperamentally inclined to look for those papers that dealt with this particular aspect of Guyana’s development. I now turn to this issue.
I begin discussion of the issue of governance, conflict management and conflict resolution in Guyana with a particular observation. As I read the publication I was constrained to note that none of the writers seemed to be willing to concede that there were several other individuals who have sought to find solutions to recurrent conflict in Guyana resulting from an inadequate political and governance system. And this was so because it was widely accepted in modern writing on this question and on other areas that it is important that whatever programmes and plans were developed for the resolution of conflict in that society should be owned by the people.
In this regard, it would perhaps have been wiser if those persons writing about the conflictual situation in Guyana had taken account of previous prescriptions for a solution. Apart from the attempts by the PNC and the PPP to seek solutions to Guyana’s political problems, there are such people as Judaman Seecoomar, who in Contributions towards the Resolution of Conflict in Guyana (2002) summed up Guyana’s problems in such a manner as to suggest that it could have complemented to the arguments adduced in the book under review: Seecomar notes that:
“If more than 40% of the population believed that access to effective political participation could only be obtained by subversive means, then Guyana exists in the midst of a disaster waiting to explode.”
The contributors could have also acknowledged the work of Eusi Kwayana who, long before it was fashionable to do so, had offered his own solution to Guyana’s ‘tribal warfare.’ They could have also taken into account the now well-known proposal of the New World magazine for the solution to Guyana’s political and racial conflict in the 1960’s.
It is significant that even though they may disagree on the historical reasons for the parlous economic situation in Guyana, all of the contributors recognise that a crisis exists. Here I wish to say that there are some particularly worrisome trends in the writings on Guyana’s contemporary problems which can hardly be regarded as a contribution to their solution. Prem Misir, for example, is adamant that there is no racial problem in Guyana or any marginalization of the Afro-Guyanese community, a point-of-view that can only have had its genesis in a condition of studied and deep-seated self-delusion. On the other hand Maurice St. Pierre essays the more pragmatic point of view (190-191) that:
“It would be idle to pretend that race does not enter into the whole gamut of interpersonal relations between the two major groups – and worse still, to see no merit in entering into serious and constructive dialogue that will fully ventilate these issues.”
There is a dire need for honesty about the contemporary situation in Guyana. The vast differences in perception and acknowledgment of what has happened in this country over the past fifty years and the shameless attempts by the intellectually dishonest to seek to rewrite that history serves as a source of what is often the most unbearable psychological conflict.
The accounts by both Freddie Kissoon and Prem Misir of the Guyana economy during the tenure of President Desmond Hoyte were not only highly personal but also decidedly at variance with a circumstance with which I am acutely familiar given my
own intimate involvement therein. It is simply not true, for example, to give the impression that the Guyana economy was in the doldrums under Hoyte when the Inter American Development Bank in its 1991 report concluded that the economy was growing by some 9% and that production in the sugar and rice sectors was ascending.
Freddie Kissoon describes a Desmond Hoyte who I do not recognise, even though I have known him longer and better than most people. For example, he refers to Hoyte’s anti-Indian zealotry in the post-1997 period. I can affirm that Hoyte was under no such burden and despite the turbulence of the period remained resolutely opposed to any form of racism. Hoyte by temperament and education could not be a racist.
The more worthy aspect of this book reposes not so much in the fact that it explores the problems of Guyana, but in the fact that it offers solutions. Aubrey Norton, for example, is skeptical about as to whether the country’s prevailing political system can solve its seemingly intractable problems. On the other hand both Rishee Thakur and Selwyn Ryan appear less than enthusiastic about the application of shared governance. In the words of Ryan (165):
“While power sharing might thus be an antidote to the deep feelings of ethnic insecurity and deprivation, the prevailing tension is too much to accommodate any such detente.”
The concepts of good governance as proposed by several contributors are complemented by arguments for greater political space for the activities associated therewith. It is felt, for example, that greater citizenship participation and the participation of non-state actors can promote democracy, reduce poverty and promote sustained economic development. In all of this education is regarded as a critical factor in so far as it can reduce prejudice, resolve conflicts and promote harmony.
“It is likely, however, that no sustained approach to the resolution of the territorial conflicts can be maintained in the absence of a national consensus and solidarity.”
Joseph also makes a powerful case for public education and for the heightening of general awareness among the people of Guyana of the maritime dispute and the border controversy. Above all, Joseph warns of the dangers of seeking to appease an aggressive regional power like Venezuela. In October of 1998, he wrote these prescient words (p. 341):
“States experiencing domestic disruption and dislocation or approaching strongly contested elections are inclined to resort to dramatic action, sometimes in their foreign policy, to divert domestic attention and cultivate jingoism at home. Such action can be directed against a neighbouring state perceived itself to be enmeshed in domestic turmoil affecting national cohesion and national response, (and) since the elections of 1997, Guyana appears to offer such temptation. Further, the pursuit of activist foreign policy is usually premised upon an analysis that the foreign policy of the neighbouring state is vulnerable and susceptible to probing.”
Even if we had forgotten the truth contained in such writing, a timely reminder was provided less than two weeks ago, when Venezuela invaded the land and air space of Guyana on November 17, and blew up two pontoons owned by Guyanese. The response of the political administration up to this time reflects a lack of mindfulness of the point made by Mr. Joseph, one of the more discerning and accomplished contemporary students of the territorial controversy. Indeed, the response of the political administration manifests all the signs of the vulnerability described by Joseph. The administration seems content to merely issue diplomatic notes rather than to seek to pursue more robust diplomatic action in circumstances where, from Venezuela’s standpoint, those notes appear not to be worth the paper they are written on. What is most troubling about this is that the prevailing condition of studied reluctance to assume a more assertive response to this latest incursion by Venezuela appears linked to “protecting” oil supplies secured from that country. It requires no substantial understanding of the behaviour of states in circumstances of territorial controversy to recognize that this policy carries with it the danger that Venezuela could use what it perceives to be a condition of dependency to take hostile action against Guyana as and when it pleases then soften the blow by ‘pledging friendship’ in the form of its oil ‘offerings.’
While events have now overtaken some of the facts contained in his article, Tyrone Ferguson, nonetheless, points to a number of critical issues in addressing the Suriname situation. In particular, he underlines the need to pay close attention to the internal politics of Suriname which has an important bearing on the conception and implementation of foreign policy. Surinamese governments invariably emerge from conditions of ‘horse trading’ and negotiation and any faction that engages in acts that are perceived to be inimical to the national interest of the country is likely to come under severe criticism or even lose office. This observation is relevant in view of Suriname’s reaction to the recent maritime award. Ferguson also argues for greater national consensus and greater public education.
A book of this range and scope would inevitably embrace a variety of styles and it is an intrepid reader indeed who would go through it at one sitting. The editors and the publishers, therefore, should have ensured that there was an index which could be a valuable tool for the very academics, policy makers, students and general readers who could use it as a tool for going through the various subject matters covered in the book.
I have already said that this book is a valuable addition to the search for solutions to Guyana’s problems and those affecting the region. In this sense, Cedric Grant has left a legacy of which his family, colleagues and friends can justly be proud.
