In Archibald Leonard Luker’s lyrics to our national anthem, we proclaimed ourselves at the birth of our new nation, proudly and perhaps still in a state of relative innocence, “one land of six peoples, united and free.” Thus did we, at Independence, ironically perpetuate the colonial view of ourselves as six distinct peoples – Amerindians, Europeans, Africans, Chinese, East Indians and Portuguese – thrown together by the happenstance of history, even as we were striving towards the forging of a single national consciousness and identity.
Indeed, we also, more or less, unquestioningly accepted the British differentiation between the colonial ruling, landed class of European ancestry and the Portuguese, who came as indentured labourers from Madeira, the Azores and the Cape Verde Islands. It would appear that, in the eyes of our colonial masters, the Portuguese were not white enough. In addition, many of us were guilty of a post-colonial transference of racist attitudes, perhaps most notably in the shameful perpetuation of stereotypes with regard to the Amerindians, our first people.
Today, of course, the composition of our population has changed somewhat since 1966. What remains of the original European and Portuguese tribes can probably be generally classified as one small, light-skinned group and the Chinese have also suffered considerably from emigration, notwithstanding a modest influx of new immigrants from mainland China. On the other hand, the Amerindians, even though there is still a fair bit of movement to and fro across the borders, now represent some 10% of the population. And there is a large mixed race group that defies categorisation.
However, colonial and post-colonial notions of colour and class have not entirely disappeared from our collective psyche and our socio-political reality, a fact sadly all too evident in the polarised nature of our politics and the ethnic distrust and, in some quarters, hatred that blight our development as a nation. And whilst, for some, the Obama phenomenon might inspire new dreams of a post-racial Guyana, the truth is we have a long way to go yet before we can achieve the type of racial harmony and social cohesion that Guyana needs to progress.
As part of his initial contribution to generating “thinking on issues that can help in the future cohesion and development of Guyana,” the declared aim of the newly-established Guyana Institute of Public Policy, of which we hope to hear more as soon as possible, Dr Bertie Ramcharan, a founding Director of the Institute and a former UN High Commissioner for Human Rights, makes a case for inclusive governance, premised on the intriguing concept of “constituent peoples” (‘Inclusive governance in Guyana’ SN, July 23).
Based on his experience in the peace process in the former Yugoslavia, where the concept of “constituent peoples” was central to conflict resolution and, in particular, the emergence of the new Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina, whose constitution recognizes three ethnic “constituent peoples” – Bosniaks, Serbs, and Croats – Dr Ramcharan advocates a similar approach in Guyana.
According to Dr Ramcharan, Guyana is “a plural nation,” which by its very nature demands inclusive governance. As such, there should be “constitutional recognition of this plurality,” via recognition of “three constituent peoples” – Amerindians, Afro-Guyanese and Indo-Guyanese – who “must see themselves reflected in the governance arrangements in the country.”
It is a thoughtful and thought-provoking thesis that ought to be the subject of further debate. We have previously heard suggestions of making Guyana a federative republic, but the fear has always been that this might be too divisive a step and potentially foolhardy in the face of the territorial aspirations of our neighbours to the east and west.
In some respects, there might also exist fears that emphasizing our distinct ethnic and cultural identities might also serve to underline our separateness and thus undermine our national ideal of ‘One People, One Nation, One Destiny.’ To counter this, Dr Ramcharan seeks inspiration in the Jamaican motto of ‘Out of many, one people’ – a direct echo, by the way, of the US motto, E pluribus unum, arguing thus: “Yes, we are one nation; we are one people; and we have one destiny. But our destiny will be better moulded by recognizing our cultural attributes and turning them into strengths. We must build our constitutional structure on recognition of our historical and cultural factors.”
Clearly, the utopian ideals put forward at Indepen-dence are in danger of foundering on the rocks of racial insecurities and ethnic politics. It might just be then, that this specific proposal by Dr Ramcharan and other simple, yet practical recommendations in his essay could point the way towards preserving our fragile unity as a young nation, whilst simultaneously recognizing existing ethnic differences and reinforcing the right to equal treatment under the law, as we build together towards a more secure future for all.
We may no longer truly be a land of six peoples and we are certainly not a land of just three peoples. But if we are to be a land of one people, based on an aggregation of different peoples, we, the people (or peoples), need to make our voices heard on this matter.
