Dear Editor,
I read Mr Bisram’s letter titled, ‘The support of the two major parties in the US is largely ethnic in nature’ (SN, Dec 12), and wondered whether the average reader could make sense of it. What is the subject being debated? Is it America or India’s electoral politics? And what relevance, if any, does this have to Guyana?
Mr Bisram in an earlier letter had called for the PPP to reconcile with two expelled stalwarts, Moses Nagamootoo and Ralph Ramkarran. Such reconciliation, Mr. Bisram says “would guarantee victory” for the PPP at the next elections.
I wrote a letter expressing my disgust with Mr. Bisram’s openly advocating what is essentially an ethnic strategy. Mr Bisram’s strategy is particularly reprehensible in a post-Mandela world. Today the world celebrates the life of Mandela for his extraordinary personal sacrifices and successful struggles against domination of one race over another. And, here we have Mr Bisram seeming to call for the opposite. The PPP is perceived as an ethnic party. It has won five elections in a row, simply because most people vote race, and the Indians have a numerical majority. To honour the life of Mandela, we should work for the withering away of the power of ethnic parties and against ethnic voting.
Mr Bisram is now on record for not only calling for ethnic strategies to win elections, but for the continued existence of ethnic parties. Mr Bisram in trying to defend the indefensible in his letter of December 13 goes on about America and India. He says America has ethnic voting and ethnic parties, and he says the same thing of India, and from these countries he takes licence to legitimize ethnic parties and ethnic voting for Guyana.
We do not have ethnic voting in America of the kind you see in Guyana. I know what troubles Mr Bisram. African-Americans for decades after the Civil War (1860s) have voted overwhelmingly for the Republican Party (President Lincoln who was credited with bringing an end to slavery was a Republican), but over the years the Republican Party became a party for the richer classes; the Democrats became the party for the poor and underprivileged, so Africans shifted to the Democrats. Today African-Americans traditionally vote 87 per cent strong for Democrats. When Obama became the candidate, the African-American vote for Democrats went up a few points. This is a clear case of African-Americans voting their class and self-interest, and in the case of Obama’s election a little bit of ethnic pride. Only a half-baked political scientist would cite this as evidence of ethnic voting. And, the African-Americans at 13 per cent of the electorate do not make the Democrats an ethnic party, no matter what twisted logic Mr Bisram argues.
Mr Bisram says, “America is tribalized into ethnic enclaves.” America is largely an immigrant society made up of hundreds of ethnicities and nationalities who tend to form little Italys, little Guyanas, Chinatowns, etc, for cultural reasons. Does this make them a tribalized people? The word ‘tribalized’ suggests outbreaks of riots among these hundreds of “tribalized ethnic enclaves.” These hundreds of nationalities and ethnicities are not ‘tribalized’ and do not engage in ethnic voting; they vote their class and self-interest; and there are no perceived ethnic parties in America.
Mr Bisram indulged himself in a lengthy ramble on India. How could any reasonable person deny the BJP is a Hindu fundamentalist party? The New York Times and the world’s credible print media have labelled the BJP a Hindu nationalist/fundamentalist party. The Muslims of India – 65 million of them – are deathly scared of the BJP. And if a few thousand Muslims recently in Lucknow, Uttar Pradesh voted BJP for some strange reason, this is not a nation-wide trend. If the BJP wins and implements its “Hindu strategy”, it potentially could lead to a conflagration in the subcontinent.
Mr Bisram says, “Scholarly literature refers to voting in America as ethnic in nature.” I challenge him to cite one such credible source. How could it be when an African-American won the presidency and there are only 13 per cent Africans in the electorate?
Finally, Mr Bisram says he did surveys and his “racial strategy” is based on those surveys. I challenge him to produce his raw data from those surveys for verification by an independent entity. If he fails to produce his data, the public must conclude that his surveys are just one of his backdoor ways of promoting his ethnic ideology.
In Mr Bisram’s final paragraph, he wrote: “Ethnic coalitions may be a way to go in Guyana until multi-ethnic parties are formed or the ethnic parties become transformed.” Where does he stand? Is Mr Bisram for coalitions on the basis of ethnicity, or is he for ethnic parties becoming transformed into non-ethnic ones? The answer is plain for all to see. It is abundantly clear in his numerous “writings.”
My personal appeal to all decent Guyanese of all races is to work to end the existence of ethnic parties and ethnic politics and help to usher in the dawn of a new era. US Ambassador Brent Hardt says he is always looking for ways to be helpful to Guyana. I urge him to use his good offices and the power of the United States to gently nudge the ethnic PPP and PNC to transform themselves into non-ethnic parties.
Yours faithfully,
Mike Persaud