Dear Editor,
I attended the entire meeting held by ACDA in Beterverwagting on Saturday, April 16. I listened to the entire presentation by Tacuma Ogunseye and fully agree with and support his analysis, thrust and message. The message was clear, pragmatic and motivating. Nothing I heard suggested violence. At the same time, nothing I heard suggested shyness.
Not unexpectedly, attempts are being made to cast ACDA’s message as racially divisive and violence provoking. Afro-Guyanese must by now know that these attempts are part of a deliberate ploy to keep us pliable and submissive. The outlines of the ploy are obvious: if Afro-Guyanese raise their voices to demand justice or fair treatment, we are labeled as inciters of racial division and social unrest. If we engage in legitimate public demonstrations, we are labeled as hooligans, thugs or, since 9/11, terrorists. If we propose that, all things considered, shared governance is the only viable option in a society such as ours, the idea is attacked as an effort to gain power through the back door. In case you missed it, there is an active strategy to mold the Afro-Guyanese population (and their leaders, institutions and communities) into an enfeebled mass. Part of the strategy is not necessarily racially motivated, but politically to the extent that one can separate the two.
We must not therefore be fooled by the propaganda campaign to undermine and criminalize our legitimate struggle. Those against a just society and shared governance know their mission. We must know ours too.
Afro-Guyanese must keep at least three things in mind: (i) the call by many among us for shared governance reflects a full recognition and acceptance that other races in Guyana also have a legitimate claim to this country. It is a call that therefore respects the mutual existence and development of all; (ii) the numerical advantage of Indo-Guyanese in the population is not due to any brilliance of Cheddi Jagan or his party; it is mostly due to the greater number of ships that crossed the Atlantic from 1838 with Indian Indentured labourers. This twist of history cannot therefore be used to claim political ownership of the country by any group; and (iii) the country’s cultural diversity and political history make the one-race-take-all system invalid.
Finally, now that the PNCR presidential candidate has publicly endorsed his party’s call for shared governance, he and the party must let us know what concrete steps they intend to take ASAP to advance the cause. It is not hard to find help.
Yours faithfully,
Sherwood Lowe