Dear Editor,
I refer to Mr Hamley Case’s letter ‘Inspired by Obama Guyanese should seize the day’ (SN 15.11.08) dealing with the lessons learned from the American elections and applying them to solve Guyana’s political problems.
The lessons from Obama’s election victory are simple.
(1) He never appealed to race to win votes. He ran mainly an issues-based campaign.
(2) The overwhelming majority of approximstely 115 million voters decided they wanted “change,” as in change from the Republican to the Democratic party. (They were tired of the Bush war; deregulation (responsible for the financial meltdown); lack of an energy policy; need for universal health care, etc.)
(3) The great fear was that the majority of the American voters would not be able to overcome their racial prejudices and vote for an African-American candidate. But they did with flying colours. This process was helped immensely by the brilliance of candidate Obama himself – always calm and cool as a cucumber; always right on the issues; always presenting the arguments in a non-threatening way; always appearing confident and knowledgeable, etc.
This election was a show-case of democracy in action − a model exercise in campaigns, voting behaviour, voting on issues, not race, etc.
Mr Case railed against the Westminster model constitution – ‘winner takes all.’ It is exactly the same principle in the US constitution. What’s wrong with the constitution of Guyana? And how has the American election exposed any fault in the constitution of Guyana, or the free and fair elections we have been having in Guyana since 1992?
Mr Case called for shared governance. Does Obama’s election demonstrate the need for shared governance in America or Guyana? Doesn’t shared governance in itself negate the meaning of democracy? (If Obama picks or retains one or two Republicans in his cabinet – as Bill Clinton did, it is because he wants to forge bipartisanship to aid the passage of crucial legislation in the Congress, but this is not shared governance).
Now I concede there is a big problem in Guyana. It is called ethnic parties and ethnic voting in a country that has two almost equally large ethnic groups. The Indian group has a slight numerical majority, and given the culture of ethnic voting the Indian-ethnic party won the last four elections, and they will continue to win for the next 100 years. The African-Guyanese justly feel excluded from political power. And they are seething with rage. A whole school of thought (led by Dr David Hinds, among others) has given birth to and is agitating for shared governance.
This is a genuine and grave problem. As a Guyanese I am deeply concerned about this problem. So how do we fix this problem?
The recently concluded American election does teach a valuable lesson that can and must be applied to Guyana. End ethnic parties and free-up the political atmosphere so that people will not be constrained to vote for ethnic parties, but rather be emboldened to vote on issues. Mr Case called for constitutional changes. The only change I will propose that has merit is that the victorious party’s mandate must consist of at least 20 per cent cross-racial support. But this is better dealt with by adopting it as an unwritten rule, and letting the burden rest on the parties themselves to achieve such a bi-racial mandate.
Let me conclude by saying that there is nothing genetic about voting race; it is not coded in the DNA of the Guyanese people, and they, like the American people, will also vote on issues once the ethnic parties are put out of business.
For the sake of Messrs Hamley Case, David Hinds, Ogunseye and the out-of-power Afro-ethnic PNC, I would like to see the PNC win the next election scheduled for 2011. We need genuine multiracial democracy to evolve in Guyana. And, the true test of democracy is that the baton of power must pass from one party to another every few election cycles. Indeed, no party can command majority support forever. There are so many unhappy Indians in Guyana, disenchanted with the ruling Indian-ethnic PPP that they will gladly vote for any reasonable alternative. Indeed, like the American people, they will easily overcome their racial prejudices, and vote on issues − but there has to be a reasonable alternative. The PNC continues to have a life-and-death hold on the principle that the PNC can only be led by an African and is seen as catering to the needs of Africans only. And, the PNC still has to deal with the burden of its past – its 28-year dictatorial rule and oppression of the Guyanese people and the destruction of the economy. As Shakespeare might say, the fault, dear Brutus, lies with the existence of ethnic parties which encourage and reinforce and are forever committed to the idea of ethnic voting.
Yours faithfully,
Mike Persaud