The drive towards dominance has been successful largely because it has been furtive. Accusations of racism are normal in multiethnic societies and have historically been frequently bandied about in Guyana. This very fact provided a useful cover for the PPP drive for political dominance, as all accusations of racism were lumped together, preventing more attention being focused upon the more clandestine intent. But notwithstanding this, the situation has become so obvious that there have been many attempts to represent what is taking place. We hear about the racial propensities of Hinduism, the criminalization of the state, ideological racism, the existence of racial apartheid and, from the PPP itself, an acceptance that this dominance may be leading to a “resurgence” of sentiments against Guyanese of East Indian-descent.
In my view, while there may be some validity in all the explanations, they miss the important point that what has taken place was not accidental, the natural outcome of ideological positions or mere thievery, but a deliberate effort to create political dominance and as I have argued in a previous article in this series, in our divided context this becomes ethnic dominance.
In retrospect, this should not surprise us, for last week I indicated that since 2004 President Carter reported that the PPP intended to stay with the winner takes all political machinery, and two weeks ago the prime minister is reported as stating in parliament that the PPP does not support executive ‘shared governance.’ (He also stated that even late president Hoyte did not support it, without also stating that Hoyte had changed his position by the time of his death). Since there is no intention to create a more inclusive political arrangement, the only other way of creating a limited, workable, stability is by the establishment dominance.
The PPP claims that since persons of all races can join the party it is not a racist one. Although this appears a reasonable claim, it only serves as another cover for its establishment of dominance. First of all, who holds power in an organisation is much more important than who can join and not so long ago, I took the opportunity to show who holds power in the PPP (“What we have now is not working in any meaningful manner” SN 29/06/2011).
Secondly, the desire to place a greater African membership under the existent PPP leadership may also explain why there is not a single area in African social life that the PPP has not sought to dominate or depress. Just look around: Linden, the Georgetown City Council, the TUC and Public Service Union, the University of Guyana and even the church. Africans who wish to progress must join the PPP and a few have taken this to the extreme and felt compelled to photograph how they voted at the elections as proof of allegiance. The idea then is to corral the impoverished Africans and herd them into the PPP. But the last elections demonstrated in no uncertain terms that these kinds of approaches do not work in bi-communal society.
I believe that those who have argued that what is taking place is racism rooted in some kind of Hinduism are wrong. Indeed, whether or not Hinduism makes persons more accommodative of racism is largely irrelevant. Hindus are as much pawns in the PPP drive for dominance as the Africans were under Burnham. Almost by definition, bi-communal societies have racial/ethnic security concerns and politicians can try to manage them in two main ways: deal with the cleavages by sharing power or go for dominance.
The PPP has gone for political dominance and thus in our situation must rely on ethnicity as a major means of staying in office. This is perhaps what some mean when they contend that the party is using racism as an ideology. It really does not matter whether or not one is racist; racist ideology is simply a means of holding the allegiance of traditional support and, more importantly, keeping oneself in office.
But the PPP must not forget that just as its supporters consistently blame Africans for what took under the Burnham regime, it must expect its traditional supporters to be blamed for what is taking place under its watch.
In all societies, but more so in poor ones, there are usually accusations of corruption and this has been the case in Guyana. However, not unlike the case with racism, this ‘normal’ situation has come to hide a huge transfer of resources to those who support the PPP. Almost the entire society believes that massive corruption exists by way of procurement, money laundering, the trade in illicit drugs, etc. The government response has largely been denial or claims that it is doing what it can. Yet, after over a decade a constitutionally required Procurement Commission is not in place and the money laundering legislation is dormant.
There is however another more suppressive element. For those of the other races, what makes this process even more difficult to stomach is that the PPP is not seeking dominance of the private economy – for that has probably always existed – but the dominance of its own supporters. Since it was not responsible for the creation of the old Indian rich, they are considered somewhat unreliable and we are now in the process of creating a nouveau riche.
In the initial stages of this discourse I argued that during Cheddi Jagan’s presidency, much progress was made in trade union reform. But the labour agenda was from completed and in the 1997 elections the PPP/C promised that, should it win the election, it would, among other things, establish an independent industrial tribunal to hear and settle disputes relating to unfair dismissal, redundancies, discrimination in employment, etc., between employers and employees, the law to establish which was already under discussion with the social partners. It also promised to establish an independent mediation and conciliation service based on the British Advisory, Conciliation and Arbitration Services, for employees and employers.
The death of Cheddi Jagan, but more importantly the coming to office and resignation of Ms Janet Jagan, brought these progressive developments to an end. In its place it ushered in an era characterised by the struggle for dominance and the determination of the regime to use such methods as it could to either suborn those unions it could or diminish those it considered its enemies. Non-recognition, removal of automatic agency shop payments and subsidies are all weapons of this overall approach. The result is that today we have not only a divided labour movement but the struggling for survival of those unions that are viewed as the anti-government.
henryjeffrey@yahoo.com
