Dr Bertrand Ramcharan, Ph.D. (LSE), Barrister-at-Law, is a former UN High Commissioner for Human Rights, Chancellor of the University of Guyana, Commissioner of the International Commission of Jurists and Professor at the Geneva Graduate Institute of International and Development Studies. He is one of the founders of the newly-established Guyana Institute of Public Policy, of which he is a Director. The Institute aims to generate thinking on issues that can help in the future cohesion and development of Guyana.
By Dr Bertie Ramcharan
Ever since its birth, the country that is now known as Guyana has been a troubled land. European colonization was traumatic for Guyana’s indigenous population. To this day, they are the most vulnerable and disadvantaged group in the country. They have historical grievances and contemporary issues that are deserving of examination in a truth and reconciliation process.
European colonization brought to our country enslaved Africans who suffered the traumas of capture, enslavement, transportation across the oceans, ill-treatment and dehumanisation, torture, bondage, and the harshest of harsh treatment. They claimed their inalienable right to freedom, rebelled for freedom, and, after the abolition of slavery organized to improve their bargaining power with the plantation owners and to build lives in freedom. Walter Rodney researched the emergence of the working class in Guyana and Eusi Kwayana has recorded the importance of village life for the freed slaves and their descendants. In Guyana there has never been a historical reckoning of the crimes perpetrated upon the slaves, and a truth and reconciliation process needs to fill this gap.
British colonization brought to Guyana thousands of indentured labourers and their families. Some of them were tricked into coming here. They had to undergo the indignities of the sea journey and, upon arrival, also had to suffer their fates at the hands of plantation owners. While no group suffered as much as the slaves, they too suffered and their story needs to be recorded as part of a truth and reconciliation process in Guyana.
The colonial period, prior to Indian indentureship, had seen saw the arrival of smaller numbers of Portuguese and Chinese as indentured labourers. Their numbers have dwindled because of emigration but they are among the founding peoples of Guyana and their stories, their trials, deserve to be studied and told.
The struggle for trade union rights, human rights, and independence for Guyana led to many agonising occurrences and this needs to be recorded in a truth and reconciliation process. The suspension of the constitution in 1953, the internecine strife, killings and crimes in the first part of the 1960s, and the fires and bombings in Georgetown and elsewhere during this period need to be studied and analysed as part of a truth and reconciliation process. If we are to heal then we must take account of the past and learn lessons from it.
The period of PNC rule from 1964 – 1992 has given rise to many allegations of rigged elections, fraudulent referenda, control of the judiciary, executive depredations, the paramountcy of the party, corruption, human rights violations, and extra-judicial killings by a death squad in the police. It would be healthy for this to be studied and recorded from the point of view of learning lessons for the future of the country.
The period of PPP rule from 1992 to the present has also given rise to many allegations of incompetence and inefficiency, widespread corruption, discrimination –especially in the awarding of state contracts, manipulation of the judiciary, human rights violations, extra-judicial executions by a death squad of the police force, and collaboration with drug lords. It would, again, be healthy for these issues to be studied and recorded from the point of view of learning lessons for the future of the country.
The governance system in Guyana has been a source of serious contestation ever since Guyana attained independence in 1966 and it would be healthy for a historical truth and reconciliation process to examine this issue from the point of view drawing lessons for the future.
The treatment of women in Guyana would benefit from historical study and analysis. So would the treatment of children. We have lessons to learn from our historical experience on these matters.
The foregoing is a snapshot of issues that could be usefully examined in a truth and reconciliation process in Guyana. Truth and reconciliation processes need to be tailored to the circumstances of each country. There is no one-size- fits-all formula. Our country must choose its own path, wisely.
Guyana remains a fragile country and a truth and reconciliation process must take this into account. We should not study our past with a view to pointing fingers, making accusations, or seeking to institute criminal trials. We should pursue a truth and reconciliation process with a view to analysing and recording events and issues in our history, drawing lessons from them, and identifying policy options that can help us go forward with cohesion as a nation.
How can this goal be achieved? We need, first, a process that has the support of the Parliament and of the parties represented in them. It would not be enough to do a historical examination by research institutions alone. What we do not need is a judicial or quasi-judicial commission. That would invite too many people to approach the issue in an adversarial manner.
What would be helpful is a historical inquiry, commissioned by Parliament, and carried out by a combination of Guyanese, Caribbean and international scholars. The aim would be the publication of a series of historical studies on issues such as those set out earlier in this article, wrapped up by a short report offering lessons learned by the panel of scholars.
An international personality of renown could be chosen as Chairperson by the Parliament, acting in consensus. The Chairperson could choose a scholar for each of the topics he or she selects, and they, together, would form the truth and reconciliation commission. They would raise funds from the donor community so they are entirely free of all governmental influence or financial pressure. The panel could be given three years to conclude their work. At the end of their work their studies and recommendations would be tabled before Parliament and widely circulated in the country. That would be the culmination of the process. The studies would speak for themselves and would be there for all to comment upon, agree or disagree with.
The process should contribute to national catharsis over time. It should be a foundation contribution to nation-building. And if we are wise, we should learn lessons and identify policies and ideas that can help us move forward together with cohesion and national unity.