Dear Editor,
I write with reference to Mr Bisram’s letter titled, ‘Putting someone from another ethnic group as leader of an ethnic party does not necessarily bring votes’ (SN, Dec. 7).
So that readers can get the big picture of the issues it is necessary to provide this short backgrounder:
(1) Mr Bisram in an earlier letter had called for the PPP to reconcile with two expelled stalwarts Messrs Nagamootoo and Ramkarran. Such reconciliation, Mr Bisram says, would “guarantee victory” for the PPP at the next elections. It was obvious that Mr Bisram wanted all Indians to vote in a solid bloc. Mr Bisram believes that Nagamootoo and Ramkarran being Indians would help that cause. Mr Bisram’s cause can only be characterized as a case for “Indian triumphalism.
(2) Mr Bisram’s campaign strategy runs counter to my own ideas about Guyana’s politics. In scores of letters over the last 15-years, thanks to SN and KN, I have called for ethnic parties to begin the process of transforming themselves into genuine non-racial parties, adopt broader platform issues catering to all races, so that they can attract cross-racial support. A large enough pool of swing voters would emerge, I believe, comprising both major races who would vote on issues rather than race. Such a development would produce a passing of the baton of power every few election cycles. Without this development, Guyana is stuck with an ethnocracy, a ruling party whose leader can only be an Indian, and which party will forever be elected, thanks to a numerical majority of Indians and a 60-year old culture of ethnic voting, and a little help from a bad constitution. The current system of electoral politics is inherently unstable. It is also not my idea of genuine democracy.
It was natural for me to criticize Mr Bisram’s advocacy and activism for pure racial voting. I also said Mr Bisram should stop dreaming of a reconciliation as Messrs Nagamootoo and Ramkarran are decent, principled, incorruptible men who could not ever be reconciled with the PPP simply because of a racial cause – these men transcend race.
Mr Bisram responded with a letter which I can only characterize as a bombshell. He openly defended an ethnic strategy and an ethnic political ideology for Guyana. He wrote, “Ethnic parties or organizations, by nature, can’t be led by someone from another ethnicity and there is virtually no example where it was tried.” I was truly shocked when I read this. Guyana is largely a bi-racial society, Indians and Africans make up approximately 73 per cent of the electorate. And to argue for the continued existence of ethnic parties and campaign strategies is akin to arguing for the dominance of one race over another. The empirical evidence is that countries around the world are struggling to build non-racial democracies so that all races will feel the system of governance works for them.
Mr Bisram misreads the empirical evidence. He wrote: “Most multi-ethnic societies have ethnic political parties or ethnic voting, including the US and India.” Which party in America is ethnic? And where is the evidence of ethnic voting in America? How did we end up with an African (or Mixed race) guy in the White House, given there are only 13 per cent African-Americans in the electorate? India is different kettle – lots of regional parties, a Hindu fundamentalist and a secular Congress party. India offers no useful lessons for Guyana.
Mr Bisram misreads the changing/ evolving political consciousness of the Guyanese people. In the 1960s voting outside your racial group was considered a betrayal of one’s race. Moses Bhagwan at a book-reading in New York (Dr Ramharack’s book on Balram Singh Rai) said that what Rai did in the 1960s was a betrayal. I was stunned to hear that remark because Bhagwan today is one of the strongest advocates for non-racial strategies and non-racial parties. Further evidence of the loosening of the ties to racial voting is the fact that a third party, the AFC, won 6-7 seats in the last two elections. (Mr Bisram is losing sleep over the possibility that the AFC may increase its share of Indian votes, so the AFC must be vilified each and every day.)
Voting outside your ethnic group for a non-ethnic party should be encouraged. The goal is to help Guyana evolve into a genuine non-racial democracy where the baton of power passes to a new party or combination of parties every few cycles. The PPP and PNC can help to achieve this goal by changing the way their parties are perceived. A sure way to do that is for the PPP to put up an African guy and the PNC an Indian guy to lead their respective parties. Mr Bisram dismisses my suggestion as tokenism. If Mr Obama is not perceived as a token of what in the last 200 years was a white people’s party, why would an African guy heading the PPP be seen as a token?
The history of politics is a steadily changing consciousness encouraged by great statesman-like leaders who will do great things for their nations rather than only for their political party. (Bharrat Jagdeo would go down in history as a very bad leader wedded to the cause of Indian triumphalism. He bypassed the African-Guyanese PM.)
The most shocking thing about Mr Bisram’s exposition and self-revelation of his heretofore closeted ideas, apart from his ethnic strategies is that he sanctions and defends the idea of political hypocrisy. He basically says it is ok for the PPP to institutionalize a system to have an African PM who could not ever succeed to the presidency even when that president retires or is term-limited, but the party must remain true to its unwritten ethnic rule and find another Indian to head the party. His position on this matter is indefensible and is akin to political heresy – all in a largely bi-racial society. Mr Bisram has broken new ground: he has gone beyond what the PPP and PNC would ever admit. The PPP and PNC would always deny they are ethnic parties – always pointing to a few window-dressers as evidence of their multi-racial character – albeit fake.
The title of Mr Bisram’s letter speaks volumes: ‘Putting someone of another ethnic group as leader of an ethnic party does not necessarily bring votes.’ The PPP and PNC thus far have not tried it. There is much evidence to indicate a new evolving consciousness of the Guyanese people. The AFC won 6-8 seats in the last two cycles. Mr Bisram is arguing, hoping and praying this trend would be reversed.
One last point. In 2008, Mr Bisram’s weekly paper, Caribbean New Yorker (Mr Bisram is the International Editor) carried letters urging Indo-Caribbean readers not to vote for Obama, constantly reminding them about what African leaders did to Indians in Trinidad and Guyana. These letters were so persistent, Dr Dolly Hassan’s righteous indignation was aroused. She wrote letters asking the publisher Nala Singham to stop these nasty letters. The reply to Dr Hassan was one urging her to read Gandhi and Nehru for lessons on ethnic politics. I also got into the act challenging the writer who used the same fictitious name week after week to an open debate. Dr Hassan also urged the writer, if he felt so confident about his ideas, to reveal himself.
The paper suddenly shut down further correspondence from Dr Hassan. Later Paul Sanders of the Daylight weekly accused Mr Bisram of being the author of all those letters in the Summer and Fall leading up to the US elections. In several exchanges in Daylight Mr Bisram denied he wrote those letters. His letters these days in SN prove one thing: the fictitious author of 2008 holds the same ideas on ethnic politics as does Mr Bisram.
Yours faithfully,
Mike Persaud
