Dear Editor,
There has been a lot of discussion about how to defeat the ruling PPP in next year’s scheduled elections. Ideas and strategies include the ‘Big Tent’ (Joey Jagan, Freddie Kissoon). Mr Kissoon also suggested that only someone like Joe Singh could head the coalition. Eric Phillips would prefer not to have an election unless the winner-takes-all constitution is abolished. Are these ideas worth their salt?
Anyone old enough to know anything about Guyanese politics over the last 60-years will tell you that people vote for ethnic parties. In addition to its Indian ethnic vote, the PPP also has a lock on much of the Amerindian vote, thus guaranteeing it victory. Unlike most democracies, Guyana does not have a swing vote (no need for tracking polls). So which group holds the potential balance of power?
The Amerindians are one group. Can the opposition parties work with the Amerindians? Do they have access to the Amerindians? What goodies or credible promises can they offer the Amerindians?
The Indians have historically voted for the PPP. Can an opposition party come up with a strategy to peel off 5 per cent of the Indian vote? That’s all that is needed to defeat the PPP. That’s your balance of power right there – win over 5 per cent of the Indian vote.
Which of the opposition parties has made a study of the Indian constituency to understand the reasons why they vote the way they do? And, if they did, then it should not be a difficult task to devise a strategy to win their vote. This after all is not rocket science, but just a study of the psychology of people’s voting behaviour. Simply, Indians will not allow a party like the PNC, as presently constituted to return to power. And, this is not necessarily racial, but based on an all too still fresh memory of PNC government from 1964-1992. You can also bet that the PPP will never allow them to forget. That will be their main campaign strategy.
This notwithstanding, it does not mean that 5 per cent of Indians cannot be persuaded to vote outside of their ethnic base. And, this is all it takes to produce a different outcome at the upcoming elections. So which party is trying to figure out a strategy to win over a bare 5 per cent of the Indian vote? Talk of coalitions before the elections will not allay the fears of Indians, especially since the PNC is still an unreformed African-ethnic party with an African leader. And, why would they vote for the AFC – wouldn’t splitting their vote make it easier for the PNC to get back into power?
Freddie Kissoon has condemned Indians for voting race, as if Africans do not also vote race. Why would anyone blame the people for voting race, rather than looking at all the factors that galvanize and constrain them to vote race? The existence of ethnic parties is the main culprit and principal reason why people vote race.
I made the same mistake in 1990-92. As an activist in the New York area, working for free and fair elections, several people (BBC and press correspondents), warned me that we were really working to replace an African-ethnic government with an Indian one. They were all right. Even President Carter and the Carter Center made the same mistake. No group has bothered to lobby the Carter Center since 1992 to finally get it right on a second try.
The key idea to producing a different outcome in next year’s elections is for the PNC to disband itself. This however is not realistic. What is realistic and practical is for the PNC to reinvent itself into a genuinely multiracial party and to have a leader who can enter Indian villages and engage ten Indians in each in a political dialogue. What is at stake? Winning 5 per cent of the Indian vote.
Again for clarity, I do not say that just changing the race of the guard will do the trick. I have always said that a new reinvented PNC will have to adopt an Indian platform – commit to guaranteeing racial parity in the police and army; a pro-Western rather than a pro-Venezuela-Brazil-Turkey-Iran foreign policy; accept help from the ABC countries to reduce the burgeoning crime rate in Guyana.
Defeating the incumbent party is less important at this critical juncture than bringing an end to the existence of ethnic parties.
Yours faithfully,
Mike Persaud