Dear Editor,
I do not know where to begin a response to Mr Mike Persaud’s riposte to my earlier letter (‘There is evidence to indicate an evolving political consciousness among the Guyanese people,’SN Dec 11). His is a gross misreading of my position on ethnicity and ethnic conflict and my proposed solution to ethnic-based politics. The riposte is replete with inaccuracies, flawed comments, contradictions, gross distortions and misinterpretations of my comments and makes conclusions not supported by any of my remarks. He made inferences not supported by evidence and inaccurately paraphrased my statements. Some of Mr Persaud’s statements are also deficient, especially as these relate to the general topic of ethnicity and politics in the US (where shockingly he has demonstrated a superficial understanding of ethnic voting and made contradictory remarks).
Mr Persaud queries, “Which party in America is ethnic?” and later answers his own question when he opines that the Democratic Party is white – that is in terms of ethnicity. In the US, the support of both major parties is largely ethnic in nature and both tend to depend on minority ethnic groups to win elections. America is also tribalized into ethnic enclaves with its Little Italy, Little India, Little China, Little Ireland, Little Poland, Little Ukraine, etc. Both Mr Persaud and I live in Little Guyana, and Guyanese tend to back the Democrats; I, myself, volunteer for Democratic candidates in every election cycle, most recently Bill DeBlasio (who is married to a Black woman ) who won the mayoralty. The Republican Party historically has been variously described as a male WASP party. Over the years, it has attracted other ethnic whites (like Italians, Irish, Slavs, Scandinavians, etc), a smattering of Hispanics and an increasing number of women. In recent years, Indian Americans have become prominent in the party. But it has been criticized as essentially remaining white. Senior Republicans have lamented that the Republican presidential fortunes will become dimmer unless it succeeds in attracting a larger numbers of Hispanics and Asians, and it is for this reason Marco Rubio, Bobby Jindal, Nikki Haley have been given prominence. The Republican Party, for whatever reason, has not been able to attract more than a handful of Blacks (about 1% in 2012) in spite of having a Black as its chairman. The Democratic Party is a coalition of interests (ethnic, labour, etc) to win elections; almost all minority ethnic groups support the Democrats.
Mr Persaud made reference to President Obama’s election in 2008 to lead what he describes as essentially a white party. Studies were done on the ethnic nature of 2008 voting trends (in the primaries as well as the general elections) in books, academic journals, and the mass media. Bill Clinton was drawn into a controversy when he made statements about how African Americans voted in the primaries when his wife was vying for the Democratic nomination. The scholarly literature refers to voting in America as ethnic in nature. There are deconstructions of the voting of every election cycle (some in book format); Mr Persaud should read them to get a better understanding of the ethnic and changing nature of American politics.
With regard to Indian ethnic politics, Mr Persaud simplifies it as “Hindu fundamentalist and a secular Congress party and many regional parties.” No, and this view needs correction. India is a multi-ethnic (multi-religious, multi-racial, multi-tribal, multi-linguistic, multi-caste, etc) state. There are several national parties (including the Communists). There is no Hindu (largest religious group of 80%) or Buddhist party in India. But there are Islamic and Sikh parties. There is the BJP that is described by opponents as a Hindu party. The BJP denies this description, and refers to its opponents (including the Congress and the Communists) as pseudo-secularists because they appeal to religious minorities for political support by offering them satraps. India is officially a secular state but it is not governed by strictly secular rules, as say the US or Guyana are. The BJP says it is in favour of a genuinely secular nation in which the state is neutral not offering any concessions or handouts to any religious group. The BJP has been attracting a lot of Muslim support (Islamic clerics are flocking to prime ministerial candidate Narendra Modi) that enabled it to sweep elections last week as well as earlier this year in Gujarat. Parties are formed around ethnicity (including caste) in some states making demands similar to those of the ethnic groups in Guyana or in other societies. In India, there are ethnic coalitions and ethnic appeals to win elections (no different from Guyana or America). Tamils don’t put Sikhs as their leaders or vice versa. Christians don’t put Muslims as their leader or vice versa. Voters reject ethnic tokenism. The Indian ethnic parties build cross-ethnic coalitions as is done in America with successful results. Instead of pursuing ethnic tokenism as proposed by Mr Persaud, ethnic coalition may be a way to go in Guyana until multi-ethnic parties are formed or the ethnic parties become transformed. It has taken over 150 years for parties in America to be multi-ethnic and Guyana will not be transformed overnight into post-racial politics.
Yours faithfully,
Vishnu Bisram