From a boy of 10 or so, growing up on West Dem, it was there in front of me – the difference between Indians and Blacks, what we refer to today as the ethnic divide; I never heard the term back then. Only on my return here did I come to understand the depth of this rift, and the dilemma it poses for Guyana. In the wake of the election, several 
prominent voices, including our former Speaker Ralph Ramkarran, have addressed the resolution of this topic; Freddie Kissoon in Kaieteur News has recently written a stirring column on the subject, citing East Indian myopia; I urge all Guyanese to read those columns. Additionally, private voices in assorted blogs and letters to the press have raised the same shout for an end to this rift that is seen by many, myself included, as the biggest impediment to political cooperation, and, therefore, development facing our country. Just this week one letter-writer was pointing to Sri Lanka as an example of political accommodation between two leading rival groups that Guyana would do well to emulate.
As potent as such intimations are – and there have been several – the reality we face is that in the well intentioned calls for harmonious accommodation coming to two dominant opposing tribes or races, history, unlike the Sri Lanka exception, is not on our side. In almost every place where mankind has trod, groups holding different views of how life should be lived (culturally, politically, racially, religiously, etc) have been at odds with that ‘other’ as a result. It is worth noting that while there is sometimes a benign acceptance of differences between two dominant groups – pre-independent Guyana, for example – it is when the question of ‘taking power’ or ‘taking control’ comes into play that the difference then turns malignant. It is so wherever you find mankind, as we’re seeing right now in country after country in the Middle East, or Africa, or Asia, and now emerging even in Europe where immigration is altering the racial mix.
Some writers have argued that the ethnic voting we are saddled with in Guyana is owing to the “dummification” of our citizens resulting in their refusal to break ranks with a party which has failed in its time at the government helm. It is stupid, goes that argument, for a group to embrace racist demagoguery. “To my mind,” one writer fumed, “once a government is obviously inept or incompetent that should naturally lead to their rejection at the polls. Why do Guyanese continue this blind voting purely on the basis of ethnicity? It’s frustrating. It’s illogical. What’s going on?”
The answer is that logic or reasoned thought is not in play. Ethnic voting is a result of a cultural position, in some cases firmly held for thousands of years, that has to do with the values, perceptions and ideals of that particular group. To therefore expect a shift based on reason is itself where a lack of logic resides; it is traditional in man, dating back to the cave, to stay with the tribe and to be suspicious, resentful and dismissive of the ‘other’. In August of this year we read of the Iraqi government being criticised for making appointments along sectarian lines…2,000 years on with armed conflict, and invasions, and the divisions remain.
Guyana’s ethnic voting we sometimes hear referred to as “a legacy from the British” is actually our own legacy, brought here by our ancestors, and still firmly held. The clear evidence is that when we migrate, and live in countries where there is no political suasion or social motivation for the divide, we persist with it; that’s how strong it is. One can see it in the settlement patterns by population in the diaspora. It is plain as day in the various community groups in North America that emerged with East Indian representation overwhelming in one club, and Afro populations dominating in another. Time and time again, with no factors in any way promoting one group or another, that is the make-up that prevailed – one of exclusion depending solely on ethnicity, and best-intentioned efforts to break the barriers inevitably fall by the wayside. In my time in North America I was approached by two different fledging groups, one Indo-Guyanese the other Afro-Guyanese, to join the organization, and in both cases I stipulated it would have to be multi-racially based; in each case, I was assured it would be so. Today, both groups are operating successfully – one almost totally Indian; the other almost totally not.
There are Guyanese associations all over North Amercia – Tradewinds have played for many of them – virtually all with that same racial demarcation. Fifty years on our own, and our divisions remain; efforts to change stumble. We maintain our ethnic divide. A recent post-election survey here of 530 politically active persons by Mosquito Online News showed that even among its own supporters, in this supposedly enlightened time, less than half of the people are finding success at improving race relations.
Closing this racial divide will obviously pay dividends; the benefits from any aspect – social harmony; business efficiency; development; crime reduction; etc – suggest clearly the way for this society as we continue, as the song says, “to struggle we struggle”. Common sense will tell us so. Very significantly, Guyana’s new President Granger ending his remarks at the first sitting of Parliament, is reported to have said: “I pray for the unity of the Guyanese people. As difficult as that task may be, it is certainly something we should all pray for. The historic reality in the story of man is that ethnic positions are deeply entrenched and stubbornly resist conciliation, but one has to hope every hope and bend every effort that it can come to pass in Guyana. We have that possibility before us now, for the first time in many years. Given the ruin of what its continuance appears to hold, our choice is clear.”
Those stirringly expressed sentiments are a cogent summary of our dilemma. The tragedy for Guyana is that the ethnocratic stance of the regime of the past 22 years was following an equally ethnocratic regime, albeit of a different stripe, in the years previous. It is a sad and embarrassing history we have created, and it remains the most formidable residual barrier we face in our well-intentioned efforts to move this nation forward. It is a stance that ultimately leaves the two major groups in our country as adversaries rather than compatriots. It is found in a shoe that has unfortunately been seen to comfortably fit both sets of feet. It is a legacy of shame. Perhaps, with the possibility before us now, as President Granger put it, we can find some way out of this dilemma.
Letter-writer GHK Lall gets it right when he refers to his “fervent, immovable belief that, unless there is racial healing and racial reconciliation, this land will continue to be a ramshackle collection of hostile peoples.” What a forbidding prospect that is.
