To increase the certainty of defeating the PPP/C, one has to shift the paradigm of elections and electioneering in Guyana. In the traditional approach, the PPP has the greater advantage of resources, historical propaganda and organisation.
Unfortunately, the vision that produced the coalition is the normal one of seeking to win and share government with vague promises to rule better and make some unspecified “improvements” to the way we do politics. With the exception of some rudimentary suggestions from the AFC, the parties to the coalition had three years but failed to specify the kind of governance changes we can expect!
The PPP has been surrounded by all manner of allegations that cannot be properly investigated once it remains in government. And contrary to its protestations, that party, lacking the usual democratic mandate and existing only by way of a residual Burnhamite constitutional quirk, squandered the opportunity to work with others over the last three years.
Had it not been for these kinds of important concerns, what the coalition offers would have been most unattractive.
More-or-less, following a general body of literature, I previously argued (“The question is not simply to fight and win” SN: 04/03/2015) that in my view, the racial/ethnic struggle to hold and maintain political power is based upon fear that is partly natural but also nurtured by politicians.
Mr. Frederick W A Collins contended that Guyanese sleep, eat and thief together, and one must be something of a simpleton to believe that Indians fear Africans (and, I suppose, vice versa). The fear that exists, he claimed “is nurtured by the politicians; indeed, it is far from “natural.”
I think he somewhat overstates the case: our society is much more culturally differentiated than he assumes. However, Mr. Collins raised an interesting question about the origins and nature of political fear and the role of politics in nurturing or removing such fears.
Addressing this issue requires a substantial deviation from our main purpose but we had better confront it if we are not to live in disappointment.
An experiment by Henri Tajfel, which has been replicated many a time, indicates that groups are formed on the basis of the most causal differences and then proceed to discriminate against other groups on the basis of the new group identity. Where there is discrimination, there is ipso facto fear of discrimination and determination to hold the advantage.
In one test, Tajfel assigned unrelated individuals to various categories. Once assigned, there was no face-to-face interaction with other in-group or out-group members, and no effort was made to instill in-group loyalty or out-group hostility. But given the opportunity to apportion rewards, subjects nevertheless discriminated so as to favour in-group members and disfavour out-group members.
Even more telling, the initial experiment design permitted the apportionment of rewards in three possible ways. The groups could (1) maximize the joint profit of in-group and out-group, (2) maximize the total profit of their in-group or (3) maximize the difference between the profit of the in-group and the profit of the out-group.
“The act of apportionment, in other words, involved no necessary conflict of group interest for positive-sum outcomes were possible. Nevertheless, maximum joint profit had hardly any appeal to the subjects. The outcome that appealed most was maximum differential between groups even when this meant less for the in-group members than they could have obtained by pursuing one of the other modes of apportionment” (Horowitz, Donald L – 2000 – “Ethnic Groups in Conflict,” University of California Press).
Guyana is a plural society in which group identity is very real and once there is group identity there is natural discrimination and the work of politicians should be to mitigate the effects of such natural group hostility and not to nurture them.
However Mr. Collins, perhaps politicians are so successful at playing their ethnic games because to a degree discriminatory tendencies and the resultant fear of discrimination come naturally to us.
Our preferred coalition option is the necessary kind of paradigm shift I mentioned above.
- With the aid of those civil society groups that wished to participate: in the pre-election period make substantial arrangements to mitigate ethnic insecurities as a prelude to fighting for and winning government not to rule as normal, but to implement a well focused programme. Most importantly, such a programme should contain a specific element aimed at establishing a political framework that will enhance our development and general security on a permanent basis.
- The need for a coalition removed the AFC as a mediating factor, and a better arrangement for preventing the leaching of support from that party and even attracting more PPP supporters should have had at least the following elements:
- A much publicized attempt to include those civil society groups that wanted to participate in the coalition negotiation process rather than, à la PPP, inviting them after the pie had been designed and divided and a pittance left for them.
This would have helped to enhance civil society commitment to the process: allowing it to be viewed more as a national than a purely partisan affair. It would also have ameliorated the view that the AFC is being absorbed by the APNU/PNC.
- Negotiations focused first and foremost on a timebound set of objectives – such as the one published in this column (“A time-bound coalition programme is essential” SN: 25/02/2015) – around the real concerns of various constituencies.
Quite apart from aiding political accountability, this would have helped constituency buy-in into the process by giving them something a little more concrete to expect from a coalition victory than the usual vague political promises that are rarely kept.
- Constitutional reform as the major task of the government after which it will return to the electorate.
This is important, for I suspect that there are many well-meaning PPP supporters, fed up with living in poverty and insecurity, who are willing to support an agenda for constitutional changes that will not perennially isolate their traditional party from government and also provide the opportunity for them to vote again in a timely manner.
In any case, constitutional change should not take five years and it would be absurd to finalize the reforms and stay in government simply to complete one’s term of office.
- Someone from civil society (my preference was Mr. Ralph Ramkarran) as the presidential candidate, with Brigadier David Granger for prime minister, an indigenous person for speaker of the National Assembly and Mr. Moses Nagamootoo for the most important ministerial position.
The success of the coalition depends very much upon the continued and expanding support of Amerindians and Indians.
After the president, prime minister and chancellor, the speaker is the fourth highest position in the land and both numerically and morally, our indigenous people deserve at least such a position.
Hopefully not too late, my next column will continue this discourse and offer some suggestions that hopefully will aid a coalition victory.
