Dear Editor,
On August 1, 1834 the British law putting an end to chattel slavery came into force. It meant that a human being could no longer be bought and sold. It allowed forced labour, which lasted until August 1, 1838. A 20th century scholar of India, Dr S Radhakrishnan, uttered a great truth. It is still a valuable test and standard for all peoples, not only in India but everywhere, including ex-colonies. Radhakrisnan said: “We have found that any government without the consent of the governed is the very definition of slavery.”
I have been quoting this wise saying since the days of the Indian struggle for freedom in the 1940s. There are various ways of seeing “consent.” But when it becomes something we cannot agree on, it is time to find agreement. By “we” I mean all political parties and social forces. It is not the best thing to see Emancipation as a celebration only. It deserves celebration by all and also by those who escaped enslavement. It must also mean a new level of freedom and security for all.
In Guyana we did not enslave one another, nor indenture one another. We know where the invaders came from to dominate and enslave indigenous peoples and Africans, and hold others in other forms of bondage. By “others” I mean Portuguese, Indians Chinese and other African descendants.
Our efforts at ensuring security for all have not succeeded. Mr Dev has a name for it, the name of a Greek figure I cannot spell. We go to election after election and come out more divided than before. Mr Dev questions power-sharing, government of national unity, and such proposals. He wants a discussion on federation. Provided each province or unit in a federation has power- sharing or government of provincial unity, I really have no problem with the principle of federalism. What I would argue against is moving from where we are now to three federated provinces each with a one-party government.
Guyana will not have to start ethnic electoral lists or registration. The great majority of people on the coastlands have already written themselves into such voters’ lists through party choice. Those who have not done so are the exception that proves the rule.
In 1961 it was already clear that joint government had to be the first step to restoring unity. Expecting unity before a change in how government is imposed seems to me like fetching water in baskets. I had written this and was holding it before I read Kissoon on Dev and went back to read Dev’s most recent columns on language, on extremism and on federalism. Both need further comment.
Yours faithfully,
Eusi Kwayana
