Dear Editor,
Both the government and FITUG have condemned UN Minority Expert Ms Gay McDougall’s report on the minority status of Afrikans in Guyana in the strongest of terms, calling it among other names offensive and divisive. Could these objections by the government and its supporters provide further evidence to justify the expert’s conclusions that the country is one in which there are, “Two separate and conflicting narratives and perceptions of reality [which] have emerged among Afro and Indo-Guyanese”? Further, could their objections indicate who are the real perpetrators of the offensiveness and divisiveness, or could it be the objections of those who stand to lose substantially from efforts to “generate trust and a sense of cooperation across ethnic groups” in Guyana? Or is it that their worldview is so narrow, that they lack the capacity for the “visionary leadership… required to realize change and reverse the economic and social stagnation that is evident in a divided Guyana”? Asking fair-minded Guyanese to buy into their objections to the report is to insult the intelligence of the Guyanese polity and to deny the reality of the Guyanese society.
The FITUG’s conclusion that consultations were inadequate because it is the country’s largest representative of workers, but yet it could not be fitted into the expert’s visit just may substantiate the expert’s omission. One wonders what kind of submissions would have come from those who think that mere quantity of membership somehow endows FITUG with the divine right to speak on issues affecting Afrikans and Afrikan communities. Ms McDougall’s report is clear that her mission was to investigate the state of Afrikans in Guyana as a minority. In this context she advises that “A lack of disaggregated statistical data in all sectors hampers detailed and rigorous analysis of the relative situations of different ethnic groups in Guyana.” Let FITUG disaggregate its membership, representation and rate of success on matters affecting Afrikans in Guyana and after it has done that then justify its cries of non-inclusion in the consultation.
The divisiveness and dividedness of the country lies neither in the expert’s mind nor in the report written by her, but in the daily practices which, we, who certainly are not alien to the Guyanese society indulge in. The religious infrastructure and the commonly held beliefs of the major religions are a major contributor to the divisiveness and dividedness of this country. National elections results that have shown a consistent pattern of ethnic voting are indicative of the dividedness and divisiveness in this country. The way contracts and other economic opportunities are managed in this country, especially in Afrikan communities; the musical chairs played to seat Mr Jagdeo in the presidency; Regent Street; the recent random arrest of young Afrikan males in Afrikan communities and the racial composition of the faces we see daily on television and in the newspapers as heads of associations, sports bodies, public commissions and committees and all state-sponsored or state-influenced bodies, are the true sources of divisiveness in this country.
And so what if she goes to Buxton? Buxton is one of the symbols of Afrikan resistance to oppression. It is symbolic of Afrikan enterprise; it is symbolic of Afrikan love. People live in Buxton, both Afrikans and Indians, and the neighbouring Indian communities thrive off of the resources generated by Buxtonians probably more than Buxton itself. Evidence both locally and from the US justice system shows that the same Buxton which she visited, was a place where thugs traumatized decent law-abiding citizens. Her presence must have been therapeutic to that noble community which was built by our ancestors.
Where in this wide universe has FITUG come up with the proposition that the government has “…been consistently subsidizing both the bauxite industry and social services for the residents of Linden”? The bauxite industry is owned by a Chinese firm which bought it from a Canadian firm some years ago, so that even if the government is subsidizing the operations of the bauxite industry in Linden its very actions are beneficial to the Chinese owners and not the Linden community. It is the commonly accepted practice for governments the world over to provide, not merely subsidize social services to their citizens. Is there an injunction which says that the people of Linden are not entitled to social services provided by the government? At any rate the roads are potholed before they are declared open; the schoolchildren call some of them sponge-cake roads, as your shoes sink in them when walking, especially when the temperatures are high. We pay full-time rates for part-time water services; some Lindeners get none some get some and virtually none has a 15-hour service.
The government has to be credited with the supervision of the destruction of the Bauxite Industry Pension Fund. The FITUG position is made more laughable by their ignorance of the socio-economic history of the town and the provision of social services in lieu of benefits for the health hazard posed by the tons of bauxite dust which descends on Lindeners, their homes, clothing, cars and gardens, and which goes into their lungs. A compilation of the names of Guyanese suffering from lung and other respiratory tract ailments would prove instructive in relation to their claim of government providing subsidies for social services in Linden. Predominantly Afrikan Guyanese got a second chance at Critchlow Labour College; the ruse of accountability and misappropriation is only a cover-up for the withholding of the subvention, as the institution would have taken a number of measures not only to improve the conditions of accountability and appropriate spending but also to appease the government. FITUG rightly points out that the government has not budgeted for the college since the withdrawal of the subvention in 2007. One does not deal with the issues of accountability and misappropriation by the prolonged withdrawal of a subvention. Has the government responded likewise to the numerous reports by the Auditor General to the massive departure from the law in spending in other areas where the government’s supporters are ensconced? Numerous legal and administrative procedures could have been insisted upon instead of the withdrawal. The disparity of treatment is instructive.
On my first reading of the document the pride of nationhood instilled in me by the PNC administration which brought us to independence and republican status caused me to feel ashamed as a Guyanese, and resulted in me asking myself could we not have hidden our dirty linen for the few days that she visited? Then my rational mind quickly reminded me that this is a world in which mass communication is global and the affairs of a country are not totally its own any longer; this an intellectual world where persons who are versed in global problems can be thoroughly prepared before they land on site. That length of time spent in a location is not necessarily indicative of thoroughness of understanding of the conditions in the environment. That through research and theorization and reference to the wide array of human rights conventions a rapid assessment of interracial relations can rapidly be gained. The whole world does not operate like the Government of Guyana and its allies; there are intelligent independent thinkers who operate as professionals. Ms McDougal is correct when she speaks of the separate and conflicting narratives and opines that political will and vision among others would be instrumental in turning Guyana around.
The incumbents and their allies seem to possess neither.
Yours faithfully,
Jonathan Adams