Dear Editor,
Unlike Guyanese at home, who have traditionally voted for a party based on ethnic affiliation, Guyanese abroad are accustomed to observing, even participating, in elections that feature bread-and-butter or social issues. Office seekers often make bold promises after scoping out disaffected communities to determine what the hot-button issues are, or based on the poor performance of the incumbent.
In America, home to multiplied thousands of Guyanese, the last two decades saw an accentuation of ideological and philosophical differences to the point of a flaring of tempers on the campaign trail, in made-for-TV debates, and in the media, but especially social media this new millennium.
Race, a highly sensitive issue in politics, can sometimes play a role in how ballots are cast, but regardless of the race of the contender, if s/he is packaged and presented well, voters can and do cross racial lines and vote other than race. Barack Obama is a prime example of a candidate from one race that was catapulted to elected office with the help of cross racial voting. Yes, it is true that the majority of Black Americans voted for Obama, but without the cross over racial vote from White America, he could not have pulled off the win – twice.
As I opened at the top, Guyanese at home traditionally vote along racial lines, and this may well continue until there is enough enlightenment among voters so they recognize that no one race should be entitled to any government benefit at the expense of another race. Guyanese cannot leave it exclusively to politicians to change racial voting behaviour, but must be willing to change their own voting behaviour, and then prod politicians to think outside the race box by appealing to their sense of nationality and not ethnicity.
The PPP and PNC have, for decades, enjoyed racial support and votes from Indian Guyanese and African Guyanese, respectively, but a cursory analysis of the country’s performance since attaining political independence in May 1966 has shown that racial voting has delivered more benefits for those elected than the ordinary man and woman, regardless of race.
Some politicians have even been elevated from riding bikes, hire cars and renting homes, to owning cars and houses and even businesses, certainly not acquired on the basis of their salaries and allowances. And while some ordinary Guyanese have also enjoyed a level of socioeconomic elevation based on questionable sources of financing, the gap between the rich and poor or the haves and have-nots has been so disturbingly wide it is laughable when some supporters of the ruling party point to these as signs of progress. The party of the people has become the party of the powerful!
Moreover, while it does appear that more Indian Guyanese have enjoyed socioeconomic elevation than their African counterparts – there is no race war in Guyana. Nevertheless, accompanying this politically-inspired socioeconomic disequilibrium is a ‘mind games’ war based on race that is fuelled by politicians and encouraged by beneficiaries. That is why voters who are truly fed up with the status quo must target equally fed-up politicians to help engineer needed change away from race voting.
The deceitful political game of ethnic tokenism, where persons of a different race are placed in prominent positions to give the impression the party is an equal opportunity entity has to stop. The PPP always being headed by an Indian and the PNC always being headed by an African are recipes for disaster, despite futile attempts at uniting the races that have often fallen to the very politicians who have orchestrated the racial divide.
In 1985, we had the last Forbes Burnham-Cheddi Jagan racial unity attempt. In 1990, the late Cheddi Jagan picked Sam Hinds as his running mate and they won in 1992, but not before Hinds openly conceded that since Indian Guyanese always voted PPP and outnumbered African Guyanese that the PPP will win. He then promised to become a bridge for African Guyanese in an Indian-dominated government. He was right on the first count but failed on the second count, because the PPP saw to it, which makes it difficult to see how Elisabeth Harper will fare any better than Hinds.
The PNC also tried in 1992, 1997 and 2001 with a Desmond Hoyte-Winston Murray pairing on the ethnic balancing act. The 2005 formation of the AFC featured Raphael Trotman and Khemraj Ramjattan. And, recently, we had the David Granger-Moses Nagamootoo pairing followed by the Donald Ramotar-Elisabeth Harper pairing.
It has been a long race about race with politicians winning and the people losing, but as the two finalists jockey for position in preparation for the homestretch towards the May 11 finish line, with screaming supporters placing bets to earn bragging rights, this year’s elections race appears to be more critical than October 1992. Whereas free and fair elections were at stake in 1992, the stakes this year include extending democracy beyond the ballot box, restoring transparency and accountability in government, increasing job opportunities especially for youths and restoring law and order in society. It is a Herculean task for contenders, for whom cross-over racial votes appear to be extremely critical. Hate to say it, but this race is going to be a toss-up based on race.
Will the PPP, led by an Indian-African ticket, continue taking the country down the road it has travelled in recent years, or will APNU-AFC, led by an African-Indian ticket, change course? The answer lies in part with voters who are the real power wielders, since politicians derive power from the votes they receive, and also in part with politicians who must mount effective ‘get out the vote’ campaigns leading up to May 11.
Yours faithfully,
Emile Mervin
