Dear Editor,
It was Engels who said “A state is not abolished it withers away” and it was Rousseau who wrote “the more the social bond is stretched the slacker it becomes.”
All Guyanese know of the ethnic line, what has not been common in our knowledge of Guyana’s socio-political history is how we forge a social bond in which we promote ethnic harmony so that the state would not wither away. This is the challenge that we continue to be faced with in a multiethnic society, in a contemporary crisis where insecurities and political agencies reflect the division and politicians perpetuate the divide.
This truth was evident in a letter by Minister of Home Affairs, Mr. Clement Rohee, captioned “Mr Ogunseye’s approach in rejecting compromise and realpolitik as reflected in the day-to-day struggle for a better Guyana leaves the political arena open to the worst elements in our midst,” (08.03.21). I responded to that letter concerning the question of Rohee’s seeming lack of understanding of the role of Black Nationalism in the history and struggle for equality in a letter captioned “Black Nationalism was a response to white supremacy” (08.03.30).
However, even as I responded to Mr. Rohee’s letter, what has not been lost upon me is the important question that the Minister raised, that is, the question of compromise. Most societies that have been able to form Rosseau’s social bond have recognized the importance of the politics of compromise. Post colonial multiethnic societies have been for the most part notably lacking in this type of politics. Often the question is who should make the compromise and in whose interest. Realpolitik in post conflict societies with ethnic peculiarities, like South Africa, Northern Ireland and most recently Kenya leads to the realization that they must depend on compromise. Political philosopher Jean Bethke Elshtain (1995) is almost rhapsodic about democratic compromise: “But compromise is not a mediocre way to do politics; it is an adventure, the only way to do democratic politics.” Compromise is invariably what maintains the social bond.
The problem with Mr. Rohee’s disjointed rebuke of Mr. Ogunseye is that Rohee’s plea for compromise comes in an environment and from a politician who presents a government that is rigidly adherent to its own views of governance to the exclusion of the opposition and punishment of its critics (Stabroek News). Sadly in Guyana this type of governance and the opposition to it, is aligned along racial lines. Compromise in multi ethnic societies is not only the ability of politicians to find common ground in the national interest, but more importantly it is the urgent need for ethnic groups to understand and be tolerant of the other’s interests and concerns.
Many of us have argued the case that the PPP administration has made very little effort to reach out to the African Guyanese community. In fact it is not without merit that those of us who observe Guyana’s politics have argued that the PPP administration is deliberate in its effort to marginalize African Guyanese, and I would not hesitate to add, punish African Guyanese for their long support of Burnham’s authoritarian rule. Mr. Rohee and other supporters of the government vehemently reject this notion. Yet when confronted with evidence of cases of extra-judicial killings, torture and various other human rights violations of African Guyanese, which the government is silent about, Mr. Rohee is dismissive to the point of arguing that Guyanese are more concerned with their goodies barrel at Christmas than with human rights abuses. Notwithstanding, the government by the same measure is more urgent when it comes to the issue of Indian Guyanese security concerns.
Indeed, I dare not argue that a government should not concern itself with the security interest of its citizens, however, in a democracy, racial partitioning of interest has no place, government should be concerned with the various interests of all its citizens. Beside this important issue of human rights, African Guyanese have many legitimate complaints against the current administration. It is not enough for Mr. Rohee and the PPP/C administration to relegate these as due to Black Nationalists inherent bias against an Indian government.
This extremism that is being harboured is real. It is also without compromise, and of course it comes from the African Guyanese segment of the population. The fact is many African Guyanese in the position of leadership are silent. While it is true that African Guyanese have legitimate complaints against the PPP administration about human rights and other issues of marginalization and exclusion, it is also true that Indian Guyanese have legitimate security concerns. There is merit to the Indian Guyanese argument that Indian security fears come from the African Guyanese community. It would be disingenuous to argue against this fact. Most of the violent attacks involving armed robbery are committed by African Guyanese men. The horrible Lusignan massacre that is still fresh in the minds of Guyanese was no doubt perpetrated by African Guyanese men whose thinking was that in order to punish the government it must violently attack Indian Guyanese, including five children. African Guyanese organizations and leaders must confront this issue. It is certainly not enough to merely issue statements of condolence and seek to rationalize African violence against Indians.
This is the reality in which the social bond in Guyana is stretched along racial lines. African Guyanese are apoplectic that there is no strong opprobrium from Indian Guyanese about an Indian dominated government that is corrupt, inept and has run amok of the rule of law and Indian Guyanese are resentful that African Guyanese leadership with a history of excluding them from political participation is oblivious to their security concerns. As long as no compromise is reached in addressing these issues for so long the social bond will become slacker and the state is in jeopardy of withering away.
Yours faithfully,
Dennis Wiggins
