In part 1 of the column, I argued that cultural practices have to be observed within the constraints of politics and economics of the Guyanese society. The column briefly outlined historical events that set the two main ethnic groups in Guyana on a path of conflict that manifests itself in pernicious ethnic voting and mobilization. I argued that our history and constitution have wired the two main ethnic masses for suspicion and non-cooperation. Peer-reviewed studies on Guyana’s political economy have also documented how ethnic elites have mobilized their respective ethnic masses for leverage when dealing with the other side. Other analysts have labelled this non-cooperation the ethnic security dilemmas (ESD). Early interpretations of the ESD argue that African Guyanese are concerned about their economic security, while Indians have a perpetual fear of the military. The evidence over the past 22 years suggests that the military is willing to serve the constitution and the elected civilian government. The concern these days ought to be whether the military will become compromised by the established class of narco traders and those predisposed to smuggling gold, fuel, beers and the like.
My interpretation of the ESD is economic. Most of the masses of both groups vote for their respective ethnic elites because they perceive intra-group social networks will provide connections to economic opportunities once their elites win the election. Obviously some disgruntled folks would be willing to vote for the third party. But how are these discontented persons going to know whether the disgruntled members of the other group will also vote for the independent party? They can’t be certain; hence they play it safe and vote for their respective ethnic leaders. In the end, they all vote for their underdevelopment because this behaviour makes the elected leaders complacent with little incentive to propose nationalist policies that will benefit all. With the exception of the Hoyte years, I am not aware of any other President who outlined policies meant to benefit the country as a whole. Most times the policies were intended to solidify the interests of the political party over those of the country, while destroying the economic interests of others.
The leaders, except the Hoyte-led election campaigns, have to date mainly responded with strategies that can be termed “don’t split the votes,” an exact phrase used by Mrs Jagan at the Kitty rally in 1997. Perceptions of fears are largely reinforced by implicit campaigns meant for cementing the ethnic base. It is in this context we must understand why the government finally gave in after 22 years for a Rodney COI. It is meant for dividing the country and instilling fears in the East Indian communities. On the other hand, the independent voters – from the other ethnic groups – mainly split their votes among the three dominant political parties. Their voting pattern has shown a greater degree of randomness dividing their votes among the three parties. Two questions arise: (i) what is the tipping point whereby a sufficient percent of swing voters will be willing to vote on issues and platforms? (ii) Where is the strategy for winning the voters who vote with a fair degree of randomness?
The state of political economy described above raises a few crucial questions about the role of East Indian masses in shaping a political economy that is fair and just. The ethnic elites will do well regardless of which government is in power. In my opinion the masses of East Indians have to demand some important concessions from their elected leaders so that they can continue to practise their cultural and religious activities. The mandirs, mosques, churches and social organizations have to demand these concessions. Indian community leaders have to demand them also instead of writing with pennames in Guyana Times and a Muslim penname in the letter columns.
So what are some of these reforms the grassroot members must demand from the PPP? The first demand must be constitutional reform that prevents the capture of the government after a leader has captured the political party and imposed his like-minded followers. Two ethnic post-independence Guyanese leaders – Mr Burnham and Mr Jagdeo – have shown that after dominating their respective political parties they can use the power of the constitution to undermine the public institutions and therefore the ability of the government to best serve all the people. They must demand that the powers of the President be curtailed.
The second demand must be the consolidation of democracy. After free and fair elections in 1992, Guyana has effectively become a quasi-democratic society where the East Indian elites connected to the government abuse democracy when it suits their economic interests. The 2011 election was free but unfair. The views of the opposition are shut out from the Chronicle, NCN and all the proxy private media outlets that were engineered through oligarchic expropriation of the people’s assets. The people have been denied local government elections since 1994, yet another indicator of non-democracy. As a result, party opportunists in the villages have effectively taken over the local governments. Many local bodies have become a redistribution system that channels the taxpayers’ dollars to a few supporters. It should be no surprise that local works are shoddily done, tending to break up overnight. When infrastructure works disintegrate quickly another contract replaces the old one in a continuing cycle of patronage. How can there be development in this system?
A third demand must be transparency and accountability in government. The government does not own the money of the people; it merely administers it. Moreover, the government does not have the moral right to deny the opposition, which is backed up by 52% of the votes, an input into key developmental projects the country is seeking to undertake. They must impart to the elected leaders of the opposition the feasibility studies that went into the investments of Marriott, the eight-gate airport terminal and the Amaila hydro project. The people must demand why there was no warranty clause for the Skeldon sugar factory. How can the Chinese contractor walk free after a horribly defective factory was built? Why is the government pursuing its present anti-Western foreign policy when most East Indians have chosen to migrate to Western nations? What is the backup plan in case the rice for oil barter agreement is reversed?
There are obviously many more fair demands that can be made. But I would close by mentioning reform to the police force. They cannot continue abusing people and killing people without just trial, nor can the force afford to continue letting in poorly educated people. Police pay has to be improved to attract better educated young people. Police predation has to be seriously punished. It is important to ask Mr Rohee to list a few murder and criminal cases his forensic lab has solved. Finally why the PPP, known for collecting foreign aid, frustrated British funding and a plan meant for improving police work?
Yes rituals, songs, dances and the like are very important forms of cultural expressions. But these can be even richer and broader if the political economy of Guyana is made to work for everyone.
