Dear Editor,
Unfortunately for all Guyanese, and particularly so for the next generation, our country’s politics continue to be dominated by divisive forces, personalities and rhetoric which hinder national development. That said, it is my belief that young people, including future professionals, academics and other thinkers have the power to halt this cycle of destructive, divide-and-rule politics and change the course of our country, for the better.
Historians generally agree that Guyana’s ethnic divide was the result of a historical accident that climaxed in the 1950s. There is also the view that the present cleavage is an artificially maintained structure that benefits only the elite, to the detriment of the Guyanese masses. Some experts also agree that Guyanese may have natural unity but are manipulated into division along racial lines by political interests. And those experts may have a point.
Editor, the historical accident started when persons from different cultures, including Indian and African, were brought to these shores to work as indentured labourers or slaves. Distrust of other cultures may have been natural in those circumstances, but since that era – nearly two centuries ago – Guyanese have had time to forge a national identity. This identity, in fact, does exist; it becomes evident when we are faced with a national or collective challenge against which we must unite. At the present time Guyana’s political landscape is dominated by the ‘Indian/African divide.’ Nonetheless, we have shown a remarkable ability to unite against internal and external threats throughout our history, and we may need to do it again.
In 1905 Indian workers from sugar plantations stood in solidarity with African workers who were striking for better wages. Later, in the 1930s, Indians, Africans and other races protested against colonialism in a display of emerging national identity. Again in the 1940s all races united to send Cheddi Jagan to the British Guiana Legislature during the battle for independence. In 1953, all races were united behind the PPP with Jagan as leader and Forbes Burnham as chairman as we fought colonial domination. After independence, facing a dictatorship in the 1970s, Guyanese of all cultures united behind Walter Rodney who happened to be African. When Guyana’s territorial integrity was threatened in the 1980s by Venezuela, and then by Suriname during the Jagdeo presidency, we again put aside racial and partisan divisions and spoke with one voice. So why can’t we do this all the time; what causes Guyanese to fall into the trap of ethnic division?
Well, it started by accident. In the early 1950s the ambitious chairman of the PPP, Forbes Burnham, wanted to be leader of the newly-formed party, a position held by Cheddi Jagan. This eventually resulted in a split between the two men in 1955 that may be the root of all our problems. Afterwards, the majority of Indians continued to support Jagan while most Africans backed Burnham, who happened to be African – I use the terms Indian and African in the wider sense.
Where would Guyana be today if that split had not occurred, or if Burnham and Jagan were not African and Indian respectively? Would we be squabbling over things that do not matter or would we be a united, developed nation with proper roads, schools, hospitals and bridges; a country with a future; with a destiny? We will never know, but it may not matter as we have the power to change things right now. After independence, the PNC, with major African support, controlled the government for twenty-eight years, during which Forbes Burnham died in August 1985. Cheddi Jagan passed away in 1997 during the PPP’s rule that extends from 1992 to the present day.
So, these two men fought for Guyana together in the 1950s – a time few of us can remember – then they had a falling out, resulting in a division that lasts to this day. So the question is how long will we allow two dead men to influence our thinking, preventing us from building a united country?
How long will we allow the politicians of today to use the names of two men, that most of us cannot even remember, to perpetuate an artificial division that keeps those politicians in power and does nothing to benefit any of us? Some persons with vested interests in maintaining the status quo will say that each race needs separate representation in government; they will say that we have to stay divided. But what they will not discuss is the reality of race, ethnicity and the related social and political divisions, because the very concept of race has no basis in fact.
I will not dwell on the science of race as there is no such thing; race and ethnicity simply do not exist in our species, so say the scientists.
In fact, the concept of race emerged only recently, in the seventeenth century. Before that, there was some ethnocentrism when different cultures mixed, but that was all; race and ethnicity only became a thing because politicians saw it as a way to get people to blindly follow them. The sociologists also say that ethnicity is not a cause of division but rather a result of political intervention in our thinking. Race was and is a political tool that is used to manipulate the masses. So how long will we allow powerful people to manipulate us and use us as pawns in their power games?
The fact is, many politicians have no incentive to change things; they have their fancy mansions, their private jets and their guaranteed pensions. And what do we have? We have bills and debts and rent and mortgages. We have schools without running water, and hospitals without medicines. So it is up to us to change the status quo.
Today the masses again face a common enemy: poverty. This enemy was created by the ruling elite who continue to use our tax dollars to fly around the world in luxury jets while we ‘shift-down’ in crowded mini-buses and double-up on hospital beds.
We are not stupid; we know when people are trying to manipulate us and we have a duty to reject it. It is simple: we can choose to listen to hate speeches or we can turn off the TV when they even mention race; we can read divisive messages or we can refuse to read their newspapers.
And we can vote. We can either use our intellect, think for ourselves and vote on issues, or we can continue to let powerful people poison our minds with self-serving trash. It’s up to us.
Yours faithfully,
Mark DaCosta
