As the PPP/C busies itself with the celebration of its two decades in power and congratulates itself on fulfilling 80% of its 1992 manifesto promises, if the results of the last general elections did not, certainly the happenings in Linden and Agricola, which were the result of the despair of many and brought inconvenience to not a few, must be a timely reminder that it has not succeeded in dealing with the ethnic insecurity that is one of the most pressing issues in Guyana recognised in the party’s 1992 manifesto.
As a matter of fact, I have suggested in this column (“The political manifesto:” SN: 21/09/2011) that it is merely self-serving to speak of having fulfilled any percentage of a manifesto without stating precisely what is involved in such a statement. As examples: firstly, there is the qualitative issue of what having implemented means. Secondly, there are, so to speak, the numerical issues: shall we take this claim to mean that the PPP/C has fulfilled 80% of the number of promises it made and if so, is it the more important pledges contained in the 80% that were fulfilled or in the 20% that were not? Let us consider two issues contained in the 1992 manifesto to give examples of both of these observations and their interrelationship.
If in 2012 we understand the ethnic issue to be one of the most pressing concerns of Guyanese life, in 1992 the PPP/C did not think so. It argued that: “The racial/ethnic issue is today not a dominant factor in public life.” Explaining this position for those who may have had misgivings about it, the manifesto stated the position thus: “The PPP/CIVIC slate does not regard ethnic insecurity as a permanent feature of political life. [It] is convinced that the true interests of all Guyanese lie in working towards national unity and the eventual elimination of ethnic insecurity.
The proposal for a multi-ethnic, multi-class, broad-based national PPP/CIVIC list to contest these elections reflects the PPP’s unending search of ways and means to promote national unity.
The commitment of the PPP/CIVIC to winner-does-not-take-all politics and to the formation of a government of national unity after winning the elections, attests to our belief that national unity and ethnic security form the cornerstone on which a truly democratic system will be built in Guyana.” Furthermore, “the PPP/CIVIC Government will not tolerate racism or any form of racial discrimination. An independent Commission comprising the most reputable citizens will be established to promote racial equality and ethnic security, and to recommend laws, policies and practices to attain racial harmony.” The manifesto went on to claim that there should be “no discrimination in employment and promotion, and respect for workers’ rights to join a trade union of their choice.”
A substantial body of opinion will hold that most of what is quoted in the preceding paragraph has either not been implemented or been implemented in a most unhelpful manner. For example, only recently, the independent commission to deal with racial discrimination was only saved from extinction brought upon it by parliament, the most important political representative body in this land, because of a judicial decision based on its constitutional nature. But more importantly for our future, contemporary events have demonstrated that the PPP/C’s “unending search of ways and means to promote national unity” has failed.
Now let us consider the pledges found in the 1992 manifesto on the issue of the creation of a free and democratic media in Guyana. “The PPP/CIVIC holds strongly to the view that free mass media are indispensable to democratization and development.
In the process of reconstruction and the development of a pluralist democracy, free media will facilitate wide and open debate on the choice of path for recovery, and will promote involvement of the people and their creative thinking in the process of development. Under a PPP/CIVIC Administration, a free and democratic media policy will mean: no Government or state monopoly over the media; adequate coverage and prominence for government’s views, news and information; a guarantee of private ownership in keeping with a pluralist democracy and freedom of the media; opening the media to different shades of opinion; making the state-owned media autonomous with a management board comprising representatives of political parties, trade unions, religious and socio-economic groups; establishment of an independent broad-based Publications and Broadcasting Authority which will propose standards in keeping with journalistic ethics, balance and fairness; support for the media to access modern technology, and promotion of journalistic training and professionalism; and encouragement of local regional television programming that will help to protect and promote our cultural heritage.”
Was this commitment implemented or was it a part of the 20% that was not? If the former, we need: an explanation as to why two decades on parliament felt it necessary to remove and has adamantly refused to reinstate the budget allocation for the state media; an explanation to the people of Linden as to why they have had to seek legal redress and only after violent protests are now being allowed to view other television programming than that of the government; an explanation of what this implementation means when almost the entirety of those involved or wanting to be involved with the media in Guyana have been claiming that government’s policy has been deleterious to a free and open media environment in Guyana?
It does not take much to see that what has happened has resulted from an attempt to contain the political conflicts in our divided society in a “normal” political framework. The statement in the manifesto that the “racial/ethnic issue is today not a dominant factor in public life” is a good example of how easy it is to misconceive the nature of a society. Only gradually did the Marxist/Leninist Cheddi Jagan begin to grasp the limits of his class analysis and the importance of paying greater attention to the ethnic issue. Imbued with this realization, he supported the establishment of community groups rooted in community self-interest, which he thought could broaden the PPP/C’s ethnic support base; held discourses with mainly black interest-based groups in the hope of solving their issues and gradually gaining their loyalty, etc.
These kinds of efforts were also doomed to be consumed by our context, and it is time that we recognise the true nature of our condition and make the necessary adjustments to find an effective solution.
henryjeffrey@yahoo.com
