Dear Editor,
Let me from the outset state, frank, open and honest discussion on race is different from race being a criterion to be presidential candidate. Every citizen under the Guyana Constitution is guaranteed involvement in decision-making that affects their wellbeing, the right to freedom of association, and protection from discrimination on the grounds of race (Article 13, 147, 149). Said constitution also outlines the criteria to be president, and race is not one of them. In short, the law protects a person’s right to vote race, equally as it protects every person from being discriminated against for exercising their right to association. The conversation as to who should be presidential candidate, with race being the dominant consideration, ought to be addressed frontally.
By now, we, as a people, should be striving for effective and accountable representation regardless of the racial identity of the candidate and elected. Whether a president, regional chairman, mayor, etc, secured office by virtue of racial majority vote, being elected to office gives no person or race the right to discriminate against another group. The majority has no right to control or dominate, equally as the minorities must reject any notion/practice to be led, dominated and marginalised. Our racial diversity should also not fall prey to the notion that representation based on racial identity equals good governance, shared government or government of national unity.
Laws, accompanied by supporting systems, are put in place to attend to the people’s wellbeing and once adhered to should bring about the much touted desire for good governance and national unity. But laws and systems can only work when they are activated by the people. It is a disregard for the laws to accept a government discriminating against any group on the pretext that such can be corrected with the racial other winning the presidency or being in the executive.
For instance, the Ethnic Relations Commission (ERC) should have been functioning and given the appropriate resources, including staff, to advance positive race relations. With an opposition parliamentary majority such muscles should have been brought to bear to make this happen. If commissions like these are allowed to work, organisations like the IAC, ACDA, APA, would be able to present their cases of discrimination to this body for investigation and remedy, once proven. Aggrieved individuals have equal recourse. The ERC’s work is supposed to be submitted to the National Assembly and this is not by accident. For this allows the nation’s highest decision-making and law-making arm oversight responsibility and opportunity to strengthen and deepen the ERC’s role in society.
One needs to take note that we live in a representative democracy. As such it allows for representation based on race and competence. A fundamental error is being made in advancing the argument that race must be the prime factor to identify persons for national office, even more so when experience has taught us otherwise. We have seen not one African minister, member of parliament, empowerment advisor or official in 23 years of PPP government taking a stand in defence of any abuse or violation inflicted on the African community by the government. Neither has any of these persons partnered with African representative groups, the trades union or other stakeholders to advance Africans’ interest at cabinet and in parliament. In fact, African MPs of the PPP joined with the party in voting against a motion to address the regularisation of ancestral lands. No African MP across the political divide has come out in defence of the African community and resolutely prosecuted its case at the national level. The Indian dominated Plastic City and similar depressed communities have not seen an Indian-led government seeking to address their plight, unless they protest. The same holds true for Amerindians and other racial groups. African leaders also seek escape for not addressing the prevalent policies of racial discrimination under the misguided pretext that should they do so they will be called racists.
A land with at least six peoples, holding to the notion that racial identity equals representation of racial interest, means that every racial group will have to be in government. And where the emphasis is placed primarily on Indian and African, what this is saying to the nation is that only these groups are important and others need to fall in line, to accept the notion that they are not part of the significant other. This in itself is perpetuating another form of racial discrimination.
Based on the aforementioned, this nation’s interest would be best served if persons strive to resist the temptation of domination by the minority or majority and work towards creating a level playing field built on equality for all. This universal principle is enshrined in our laws, awaiting concerted effort and singular voice in demanding and ensuring its activation.
Yours faithfully,
Lincoln Lewis