Dear Editor,
The recent debates in the streets on the 2015 Budget were very interesting. Some of the discussions were that, the government is complaining that the PPP/C left the treasury empty and if that is true, where did the government find money for the budget? Although the budget lacked originality and the current government had included some of the PPP/C policies, programmes and projects, some persons liked that. One person said to me, “Well de government just go in eh, so leh we see wad deh gon cantinue fuh do.” I met a vendor who asked me whether it was true that the government increased the pensioners pay and took away the Guyana Power and Light and Guyana Water Inc money from them. Nevertheless, I have never seen Guyanese take ownership of a government, as they have done with this APNU+AFC government. Some Indian Guyanese said to me that “black people believe that this is their government but this is not their government, this is all a we government”.
My position is, however, that there is absolutely no problem with the government implementing all of the policies and programmes from the PPP/C administration, once the government gets good governance right.
A key area of weakness of the PPP/C government, was not necessarily its ideas and policies, it was primarily governance. If one should review the 10th Parliament, most of the issues the parliamentary opposition parties had with the PPP/C government, was with its governance. Even currently, with all the revelations, it was fundamentally a governance problem.
In doing an analysis of the issues the Republican Party in the United States has with President Obama’s administration, it is more an issue with policies than with governance. In the case of our 10th Parliament, the opposition issues were more governance issues that policy issues.
As a part of our street budget debates and even in general interactions, one of the points that keeps surfacing is Indians are afraid somewhat of the new administration and I wish to address this point. The new government has signalled a well calculated intention to address the fears and concerns of the various ethnic groups through the institutionalization of social cohesion, governance, citizenship and communities by actually establishing ministries or ministers to focus on these areas.
Based on some research work I am doing on the behaviour of Guyanese society, I am finding that Indians were taught to fear black leadership in Guyana and blacks were taught to fear Indian leadership. As you interact with Indians and blacks and begin to ask focus questions, such as why are you afraid? Why are you afraid of black leadership? Why are you afraid of Indian leadership? Or why are you afraid of black people? Or why are you afraid of Indian people? The answers are very interesting and many times vague. A possible conclusion is that much of the views blacks have about Indians and that Indians have about blacks are perceptual.
There are two concepts in psychology that are appropriate in conducting this examination; these concepts are: what is different is dangerous and what we don’t understand we fear. As you communicate with Indians about blacks and blacks about Indians, one realizes that many of the things that Indians were taught about black people and that black people were taught about Indian people in Guyana are untruths. Many of the things that Indians were taught about black leadership and that black people were taught about Indian leadership are untruths and generalizations.
Most of the dominant behaviour in both black and Indian leadership in Guyana can be attributed more to the human factor as against the characteristics of a particular race as leaders. Let’s look at a more recent example of the behaviour of the PPP/C leaderships; should one examine them based on stereotypes? One may find it ironic that a predominantly Indian-led administration would portray some of the behavioral patterns we have seen; some of those bahavioural patterns are very often attributed to black leadership, this is where our discussion needs to move beyond perception and focus on facts. Whether our leaders are blacks or Indians, they are humans and human beings when given power or unchecked power, are likely to behave in certain ways. Lord Acton once said that, “power tends to corrupt and absolute power corrupts absolutely. Great men are almost always bad men, even when they exercise influence and not authority.”
Many Indians were taught that black leadership is an object of fear and likewise many blacks were taught that Indian leadership is an object of fear. The question to be determined here is to what extent are these fears real or justified?
If an Indian Guyanese mostly socializes with other Indians at the mandirs, mosques or churches, or in school or workplaces or other such organizations , or play with their fellow Indians, this reduces opportunities to get to know and understand black Guyanese or persons of other ethnicities. It also reduces the opportunities to develop an appreciation for other persons and ethnicities. Likewise if black Guyanese mostly socialize with their own people and spend time in places where their people are found, it limits their understanding of other ethnic groups, hence it reinforces the concept of what we don’t understand we fear.
On the point of what is different is dangerous, there is an example in a letter published in the Stabroek News on May 7, 2015 by Dr Baytoram Ramharack titled ‘Though not ideal, the PPP represents the best choice for Indians’. In the letter Dr Ramharack stated the following: “the PPP, though not the ideal, represents the best choice for Indians. Most Indians will hold their noses and look beyond the corruption issue, as they ask themselves which party best represents their security and political interests.”
President David Granger is black but he is a decent person, Prime Minister Moses Nagamootoo is Indian but he is a decent person. Both of these leaders love their country and are keen on contributing to its development, so what then is substantiating the current perception of black leadership or Indian leadership as objects of fear?
President Granger and Prime Minister Nagamootoo both have the benefit and the burden to change the psyche of Indian and black Guyanese about who should be our leaders.
For Guyana to move forward, we have to select leaders who are good for the country whether they are black, Indian or other. The PNC and the PPP/C might have contributed to this perception during their administrations; however, this APNU+AFC government has an excellent opportunity to move Guyana beyond merely doing politics and change the psyche in the Guyanese society so that an environment conducive for doing business can be created.
It is very important to note that, investors look for numbers. Guyana with under a million people and a divided people too, is not a very attractive selling point for investors but we can change that if we present a more focused, cohesive, and stable society and investment environment.
Yours faithfully,
Audreyanna Thomas
