Dear Editor,
Two articles recently published in Stabroek News on Wednesday, June 1, reopened the debate on the need for executive power-sharing, to address the historic racial/political divide in Guyana. The articles I refer to were authored by Drs Henry Jeffrey and Tarron Khemraj respectively. Henry Jeffrey‘s piece appeared in his column and was captioned ‘The coalition: Governing without a united national interest’ and Tarron Khemraj’s was captioned ‘Should there be executive power-sharing between PNC and PPP?’
The intervention and timing of these articles by both writers were influenced by the unfortunate seating fiasco at the Golden Jubilee flag-raising ceremony, which resulted in the opposition PPP/C staging a walkout in protest at what that party believed, was disrespect shown to them by the organisers of the activity. Objectively, this incident demonstrated and exposed to our overseas guests, compatriots and the world at large, the extent of our political division. The differences in this matter exposed for all to see our ‘political nakedness’.
Both columnists are known for their insightful commentary on public matters. Their observations in the articles referred to have forced us to a critical, re-examination of ourselves. They sought to remind the nation that Guyana needs some form of executive power-sharing between the two political blocs, if the historic political/racial divide is to be addressed. However, they do not appear to be optimistic that power-sharing can be realized soon in Guyana. We were reminded by them that the elites in the political parties are the benefactors of the race/political divide and as such, have no interest in providing the nation with the necessary leadership to resolve the problem. The articles also reminded us that our half a century of economic and social underdevelopment is a direct consequence of our inability to correct the inadequate, inefficient political system, which enshrines the winner-takes-all logic.
Reflecting on our political condition, after 50 years of independence, we cannot deny that we are still a seriously divided nation. To pretend otherwise is to do so at our own peril. The nation is still imprisoned by colonial ‘machinations’. Many volumes have been written on neo-colonialism and the challenges former colonies face in their struggle to make independence meaningful, but in spite of this we have failed to grasp the obvious lessons of history. Mr Frederick Kissoon at times out of a sense of frustration has called into question our people’s psychological health. However, he stopped short of carrying his observation to its logical conclusion. The issues he raised about the nation’s mental health are legitimate and need careful examination in our search of a cure for our ‘national disease’.
It is appropriate at this point for me to raise some questions: (1) Is our inability to end winner-take-all politics, simply a matter of the desire of the political elite to retain power and the material gains derived therefrom? (2) Or is it a larger issue that brings into question matters beyond politics and economics? As victims of slavery, indenture and colonialism we are yet to understand how damaged we are as a nation. We often fool ourselves into believing that we are masters of our situation, when in fact we are not. Radical thinkers writing on European domination in countries like Guyana and the Caribbean have pointed to the negative mental effects on people subjected to this form of oppression. In a profound way this experience has shaped our worldview. Brother Bob Marley urged a break with mental slavery. The question I now wish to pose is, has Guyana’s political leaders’ failure since independence to address the race/political divide a result of their inadequate world view relative to what is necessary for our nation’s survival? Are the Guyanese people and their political leaders equipped and capable of fashioning a society that seeks to address historical injustices, thereby giving real meaning to independence?
Our politics is rooted in the numbers game and the single leader construct. Our democracy has its genesis in our people’s struggle to end slavery, indenture and colonialism. The gains we made were won from bitter struggle and were not concessions from the rulers. In that sense we can proudly and rightfully own our democracy. However, in a more profound way is our democracy really ours? Is it adequate to deal with national challenges given the fact that the superstructure of the society is one of European cultural domination and hegemony? This works to the disadvantage of our weak or almost nonexistent indigenous forms of democracy. In light of the prevailing situation over the last fifty years our national interest is not well served. Given this reality, our politics in the main served the interest of external powers rather than the Guyanese people.
Objectively, the nation is ill prepared to give real meaning to independence, since independence, if it is to benefit the masses, must lead to liberation. As the late Dr John Henrik Clarke said, if you don’t understand the “nature of liberation” you are still a slave. In Guyana we are still to show that we understand the meaning of liberation. Until such time as we can fashion a state on the principles of non-domination, justice and equality in keeping with our collective aspirations for liberation, independence will lose its meaning.
Yours faithfully,
Tacuma Ogunseye
