Dear Editor,
Mr Ravi Dev (in KN of May 01, titled ”Bullyism”) made a valuable input to the debate over ACDA/Ogunseye’s recent pronouncements in BV. In the spirit and mindset of shared governance, each side must respectfully listen and be attuned to the perspectives of other groups. I therefore pay special attention to what Mr Ravi Dev, among several others, has to say on these matters. It is he and others who can best articulate the views of their own communities.
Mr Dev’s criticism that Messrs Lowe and Hinds failed to give even “short shrift” to the concerns of Indians and others must serve to remind Afro-Guyanese advocates of shared governance to take care to more clearly and frequently express their belief that their call is not limited to the fears and insecurities of Afro-Guyanese only. Apparently, it cannot be taken as an established fact that the public discussion on shared governance has always been framed in terms of the concerns of all ethic groups. So, for instance, it is already accepted that the black-dominated security force (and appeals to kith and kin) constitutes a serious issue for Indo-Guyanese.
To show how far the nation has recently traveled on this particular issue, I need only point to (i) the PNCR 2002 position paper on shared governance, which recommends, as a confidence-building measure, the appointment of a non-executive President as Commander-in-Chief of the army, but who would work on the advice of a Defence Board composed of the leaders of the various parties in government; and (ii) the adoption by parliamentary parties of the 2004 Disciplined Forces Commission report, which states as one of its recommendations on the army: “With regard to manpower, the Commission recommended that recruitment procedures should have a particular focus on the Indian-Guyanese community because of its general disinclination to join the Force; this should not be done to the neglect or exclusion of other ethnic groups. The Force should adopt recruitment procedures which must take into consideration cultural, sociological and psychological imperatives, designed to attract Indian-Guyanese in particular to the GDF.”
The work of both the Constitution Reform Commission and the Disciplined Forces Commission provides a good model of how a nation ought to approach such complex political issues (with public hearings, written submissions, expert input, and multi-stakeholder panels with civic society participation). We have seen, however, how good political agreements struggle to survive, if at all, in the winner-take-all system.
Mr Dev, in addition, asks for the factual basis for shared governance; in other words, the hard data to prove discrimination and marginalization of Afro-Guyanese. He appears to have some doubt. In response, I wish to first pose the question: to what extent is it possible for the father who felt his child was wrongly denied a Cuban scholarship (Mr Dev’s own example) to obtain all the relevant official information to make his case? But that aside, the entire system of allocation of state resources is infected by politics, ministerial discretionary powers, discrimination, cronyism, nepotism, and corruption. In the wash, the system is bound to favour members of the PPP support base over other citizens.
How so? The political survival and comfort of the PPP party mean that it cannot and does not ignore the relative fortunes of the races in Guyana. Its political decision-making must of necessity be biased towards consolidating its Indian support base and ensuring the opposition parties do not gain any major advantage. Accordingly, the distribution of state resources and opportunities (limited as they are) is skewed whenever necessary for the perpetuation of political power. These political decisions however have clear-cut racial ramifications, by putting other races in the second class. During the 2005 great flood, for instance, along with the general fear shared by all affected citizens, the additional fear experienced by Afro-Guyanese and other PNCR supporters was how would they, their families and communities be treated in the government process that decided who gets what, when, how often and how much. There was no shortage of accusations.
Then what are we to conclude when bauxite unions and workers are treated far less favourably than their counterparts in the sugar industry? What about the University of Guyana? Is its underfunding devoid of political reckoning? Add to that the government suffocation of the Critchlow Labour College. An Afro-Guyanese may get a house lot in Tuschen, but will he get his due promotion to the senior ranks of the public service? My child may get a scholarship to Cuba, but what are her chances that she would get the lucrative job on the IDB-funded health projects ahead of her Indian classmates?
Naturally, state cronyism (the favouring of one’s friends) and nepotism (the favouring of one’s family members) put Afro-Guyanese at a disadvantage.
What about physical security? While victims of economic crimes are mostly Indians, our recent waves of extra-judicial and contract killings have targeted Blacks disproportionately. We can send the police to deal with the perpetrators of economic crimes. But whom do we send when the hand of government is implicated in extra-judicial and other killings against Afro-Guyanese?
We are now in the heart of the problem. Each race is convinced that its relative social and economic situation as a group and as individuals is the subject of constant political calculation by the ruling party of the day. Add in the fact that the preferred style of government is one of dominance and control, and we have the main sources of the racial insecurity problem in Guyana. David Hinds is right to use the word “colonization” to describe the Black situation. As I explained, however, the problem is not driven by cultural racism (not that it doesn’t exist), but mostly by political racism based on the obsession of the PPP to stay in power at any cost. This is the source of my own insecurity as an Afro-Guyanese. I will leave out for now issues surrounding ethnic identity and dignity.
I fully understand that many in other ethnic groups would, no doubt, feel insecure should the PNCR win the next election and not urgently move to implement shared governance. Is the PPP ready to sit at the table with other parties and sort these matters out? If not, then what?
Yours faithfully,
Sherwood Lowe
