Dear Editor,
In a recent commentary on my YouTube Channel, Hinds’Sight: Guyana-Caribbean Politics, I began what I hope would be an enlightened discourse about the problematic of the proposed APNU/AFC pre-election coalition from an ethnic standpoint. As expected, some supporters of the AFC’s primary formulae of Brother Moses Nagamootoo being the presidential candidate and the AFC leading such a coalition, immediately accused me of introducing race into the discourse. What race has to do with this, they ask.
I sympathize with that question. After all, race and ethnicity, among other things, evoke as many denials as acknowledgements. Some people acknowledge race as an important persistent socio-political and economic factor on Monday and deny it’s salience on Tuesday. There is a school of thought in Ethnic Studies that deals with this phenomenon. As human beings we tend, in part, to order the world to suit our objectives. And we Guyanese are no different.
Whether we individually deny it or not, ethnicity has been the major consideration when Guyanese address high-stakes issues such as government and political economy. Ethnicity is a historical phenomenon that is at the heart of the evolution of our society. The idealist in us always asks why we can’t get past ethnicity. In some regards we are really asking people to deny a major aspect of their collective identity out of which flows the construction of an important part of their day-to-day reality. No wonder they have paid us little or no mind to date. I submit that we would be better off advancing a narrative that links people’s ethnic interests with the national interests rather than hollering at them to ignore or discard their ethnic identity and interests.
Back to the issue at hand. The major point of my commentary is that the architects of the AFC proposal are probably and I am sure unintentionally taking African Guyanese ethnic sensitivities for granted, while shielding and/or appeasing Indian Guyanese. The unspoken reasoning is that the Indian Guyanese electorate would not vote for a PNC presidential candidate and by extension an African Guyanese candidate (note the AFC has not put up one of its African Guyanese leaders for the top spot). The conclusion, then, is that African Guyanese would or should vote for an Indian Guyanese candidate. I think that the latter assumption is based on two premises. First, historically, African Guyanese have shown more inclination to vote for candidates that are not of their ethnic group. Second, their minority status coupled with almost 23 years of PPP rule have led to a higher level of desperation that in turn would drive them to ignore their normal ethnic considerations.
My argument is that such reasoning ignores a major aspect of ethnicity—ethnic honour. The unintended but real subtext of this reasoning is that African Guyanese quest for equal right to top leadership must be sacrificed in the pursuit of expediency—the removal of the PPP. What is being ignored is that after 23 years of an Indian Guyanese presidency, African Guyanese are being asked to vote for another Indian Guyanese presidency. Further, and perhaps more importantly, it is being signalled to African Guyanese, that none of their own leaders fits the bill as a consensus national figure. In an ethnically competitive society, that is a very serious element.
We are in effect asking African Guyanese to make a tremendous sacrifice. As I hinted above, the Indian Guyanese community is not being asked to make the same ethnic sacrifice. In ethnic societies equality or equal burden is always a consideration. The question that has to be answered here is what equal sacrifice the Indian Guyanese electorate is being asked to make. Yes they would be voting for a party other than the PPP. But, as those who voted for the AFC did in 2011, they would be voting for someone of their own ethnic group.
Finally to those AFC supporters who are angry at me for introducing race into the debate. First, I wish to remind them that the AFC proposal itself is grounded in race—what would sell in the Indian Guyanese community. Second, as a public person, part of what I do is examine and critique that which is put in the public domain, even when it comes from friends and comrades. Third, I come from a political tradition that deals with the uncomfortability surrounding race by confronting it, not ignoring it. Fourth, part of my activism is dedicated to the defence and furtherance of African Guyanese interests. Hence, my weighing in on an issue which that community is expected to sanction.
Yours faithfully,
David Hinds
