Half a century ago, with the intention of hurting the economy, the PPP began burning cane fields to make its political point. Yet today it finds itself in a position where it must chide others for taking action, which it claims will hurt our economy, to make their political point! It must be obvious that we cannot continue with this dysfunctional political system if our intention is to build a society that will properly cater to this and future generations. Sooner or later, change will have to come, and federalism forms a part of an alternative proposal that needs to be seriously discussed if we are to avoid some of the kinds of mistakes we made during the 2001 constitutional reform process.
Federalism comes in many forms, and the relationship between states and central governments are also most varied. In India, on the advice of cabinet that a constitutional/political conflict exists, the president can at any time declare a state of emergency and remove the elected state government. In Belgium, no national political party exists and unique federal linguistic communities – French, Dutch and a small German one – with their own budgets and high degree of autonomy over education, health, language, youth, tourism, etc., are in place.
Notwithstanding that elsewhere I have recognised the existence of federalism in ethnically divided societies (Future Notes: 15//06/ to 20/07/2011), over the last two weeks, in setting the backdrop for us to consider the suggestions of Mr. Ravi Dev (“Political Devolution:” Kaieteur News. 28/04/2013), I chose to focus on the American example of federalism because it is the one best known to us and it indicates how, notwithstanding the theory, at a practical level there is usually a dynamic interplay in which states have attempted to and succeeded in styling national plans, and vice versa.
Firstly, let me say that I agree with Mr. Dev’s contention that a structural and distributive approach containing the five mechanisms – devolution, incentives to foster intra-ethnic rather than inter-ethnic rivalries, interethnic cooperation and policies to emphasise interest and reducing the gap between the groups – can constitute a sensible way forward. I have already recognised much of this, and the contribution of Sir Arthur Lewis to this kind of discourse. (Future Notes: ibid).
Secondly, with the possible exception of the government, most stakeholders agree that the way forward for our multi-ethnic society must contain substantial devolution. Thus the discourse is about the appropriate degree of such decentralisation. Quite apart from any cost considerations, I do not believe that in our society, where there is significant racial co-habitation, federalism in which the states have substantial authority is best for us at this stage. Furthermore, in my view, if the federal authority should retain the kind of power over the states that would be required if the system is to work, our politics could become even more dysfunctional than they are today! With this in mind, I will consider a few of the advantages of federalism suggested by Mr. Dev.
Mr. Dev argues that federalism will abolish winner-take-all politics by allowing the central government to retain control of national issues, such as defence and foreign policy, and by giving to the states substantial autonomy over police functions, local development, local taxation, etc. “African Guyanese, for instance, would possess real power in Demerara, while the same would be true for Indian Guyanese in Berbice and Amerindian Guyanese in the interior states.” A second advantage he suggested is that since the centre will not contain all the power, the struggle for power at that level will not be as intense. “National politics will not be a zero sum game; “losers” will still be guaranteed power at the state level.”
Firstly, it appears to me that this formulation will give rise to more possible sites of racial discrimination and thus perhaps lead to more rather than less racism! By this I mean that it will allow the African political leadership in Demerara to play to their constituency and discriminate against Indians and vice versa in Indian areas. To escape such discriminatory tactics, alienated groups would have the option, which they would most likely take, of finding safety in their “homeland.” Thus the racial balkanization of Guyana becomes a distinct possibility.
As we have seen in the case of the US, to attempt to prevent such discriminatory outcomes, to arbitrate between states and even to implement policies relating to the five mechanisms suggested by Mr. Dev, the federal government would have to maintain important authority to intervene. Such powers would make control of the national government at least as important as it is today, and since the national leadership would depend on local ethnic populations to gain and maintain power, why should we expect a voting pattern much different from today?!
Apart from this, I know of no federal system in which the struggle for the central administration is comparatively less intensive than in unitary states. In the US, the cost of winning the presidency and congress is escalating with each election and in Belgium, it took nearly one year to negotiate the present government!
Mr. Dev also claims that federalism will create intra-ethnic rivalry, for Guyanese Indian politicians dominant in Berbice or the Essequibo Coast are more likely to see themselves as rivals for power at the centre. Some of this is possible, but where ethnicity is concerned, we have seen that all the US Southern states were willing to leave the federation over racial equality and still look askance at it.
What this alerts us to is that on some fundamental issues such as race relations, states of similar ethnicity are likely to find common ground. Additionally, within a state, since one ethnic group, while having a majority can possibly lose state government if the ethnic votes are split (say in Demerara), intra-ethnic rivalry may not be as intense as Mr. Dev believes. Such ethnic consensus within the state may again mean that the minority is perennially locked out of state government, providing another reason for migrating to the “homeland.”
From his supportive quote of Sir Arthur Lewis, Mr. Dev appears to agree that some form of power sharing at the centre must go along with his federal proposal. Federalism, in other words, cannot be a substitute for our establishing equitable national arrangements. However, even with such equitable national arrangements in place, federalism could allow the development and maintenance of a higher level of discrimination at the state level. Recognising the above dysfunctional possibilities but also the need to empower persons to govern themselves, I have on many occasions suggested radical forms of decentralisation.
henryjeffrey@yahoo.com
