In the case of Guyana, we’re talking about two contrasting, even conflicting, sets of values and priorities for living, gradually formed and developed and ingrained, for over 150 years. People in those two cultures are moulded in a way that makes those group priorities their own, unquestioned, even aspired to
Some seven days ago, SN readers were privy to a truly stirring letter from Ruel Johnson (Aug 28) making a poignant plea for Guyanese to confront “the core issue that plagues us, that of our cultural differences, our perpetually reinforced othering of each other.” Echoing a sentiment many citizens feel, he contended “that until Guyanese citizens can sit down at a table and speak honestly and openly about these divisions and about what is necessary to heal them, no system of government will work.” Pointing out that the ways in which Guyanese “separate ourselves from ourselves are not new to the world,” Mr Johnson issued an emotional call for us to begin “talking to each other” with the mission of healing the division between our two dominant groups.
Within a week, we were again reading another eloquent piece of writing from Abu Bakr (SN, Sep 4) who touched on the same subject making a number of salient points but fundamentally agreeing on the need for ethnic accommodation if not embrace. The various remedies suggested by these writers and by others – power sharing; a social contract; consociationalism arrangements – are all formulas resting on the same premise: that we are interested, nay keen, to live with that mutual regard, if not affection, for the Other. Approaching the idea of closing the distance between the two groups, Abu Bakr is correct that “there will be no change unless we evolve and grow mentally and culturally ourselves,” but what is the process of this evolution? How do we make the change happen? For as far back as memory goes, there have been organizations and concerned individuals calling for this change to take place, for us to realize the rhetoric of “one people, one nation,” but the appeals are not heard, or, if heard, ignored. The need spelled out by Mr Bakr is manifest, and in different 
words thinkers such as Ruel Johnson and Henry Jeffrey are saying the same thing, but these appeals have been made before and what seems to be very fertile seed appears to be falling on very stony ground. There is no narrowing of the gap. Some six years ago I came to Guyana to produce the ‘All In Wan’ show for GT&T. On my first day here, I’m in a taxi going into the town. Five minutes into the ride, the Indian driver recognizes me and launches into an anti-PNC tirade that lasted until I got out. Twenty-four hours later, in another taxi, this one with a black man driving, I heard the same tirade until I got out, but this time the message was anti-PPP. In both cases, my remonstrations were met by almost the identical words, “Mr Martins, you don’t know how these people stay.” A classic example of Mr Johnson’s reference to “the Other.”
It’s valid to raise the point of change, but these positions are entrenched. In the case of Guyana, we’re talking about two contrasting, even conflicting, sets of values and priorities for living, gradually formed and developed and ingrained, for over 150 years. People in those two cultures are moulded in a way that makes those group priorities their own, unquestioned, even aspired to. The patterns and behaviours in each culture that go beyond the superficial or the fad into the fundamental, or firmly held, are based on a range of influences and occurrences, generated over many years, with a complexity that is extremely difficult to analyse or understand or revise. Furthermore, efforts to persuade change in a culture don’t succeed, no matter how eloquent the exhortation, unless the majority of that culture is so disposed. Essentially, the vast majority of the culture has to see the need “to evolve and grow mentally.” Simply from living in and observing a culture, one has to come to the conclusion that most of the people living that life that way would look askance at the suggestion that there are defects in their culture. Indeed, most would take umbrage, and in fact do take umbrage, at the proposition, because it challenges inherent and firmly held beliefs and attitudes.
In many ways, the two dominant racial groups in Guyana see each other negatively, so much so that those perceptions travel with them when they migrate. In Guyana’s case, the critical impediment in the operation of the country, at every turn, is the existence of this negativity in our two dominant groups each vying for power. In every corner of the world where this condition appears, whatever its base (religion, race, culture), the division emerges with behaviours ranging from antagonism to division of territory or even personal peril. The importance of correction is manifest, but for actual change to happen we have to move past the idea into specific approaches or formulas as to how we orchestrate the change. Thinkers and social scientists among us must venture, on their own or by conscripting others, into specifically how we create this cultural shift. The need has been expressed eloquently in the past few weeks, and indeed in times prior. The need now is to move, as Guyanese say, to the fine fine.
Ultimately, the cultural change we need to see here will have to be propelled by the government of the day taking on the issue and launching some version of an official Reconciliation Commission as initiated by Nelson Mandela for South Africa. Talk and inspiring letters will serve to raise the issue, but only such a pan-societal engine, engaging all Guyanese, will have any significant impact on reducing the wrangling between the two dominant groups. The deeply and fiercely held positions of a culture are powerful entrenched forces that will not be altered easily. The confrontations that Ruel Johnson and Abu Bakr and Nigel Hughes, and others, have raised will only be productive in a professionally approached nation-wide push where social scientists can engage people on both sides in frank exchanges, on a range of topics, aimed at ameliorating the rift. Our only hope is for one of the governments we elect finally deciding to launch such an all-inclusive Commission, free of accusatory stances, aiming for some level of national accommodation.
With the need vividly and repeatedly expressed, our leaders must commit to the establishment of a tangible process, indeed processes, designed to making it happen, otherwise the current important talk will remain as just talk. An individual pleading voice or voices will have as much impact on the ethnic divide as the “Let’s Stop Littering” billboard has on reducing garbage on our streets.
Certainly, one has to hope for the change, and to hope that Ruel Johnson is right in his prediction that “there is a seismic shift in Guyana’s political landscape that is about to happen” out of which the changes will begin for the two dominant groups here to move away from the “we and dem” view that is strangling the nation now. The writing is boldly on the wall for a country where each half of the people has scant regard for the other half. To remain saddled with that stricture will simply leave us trapped in the rut we now occupy. In essence, that is what these recent communicators are saying. There is not one shred of evidence that they are wrong.
