Dear Editor,
There is much to agree with in the SN editorial of August 1st `The charge of discrimination’ if only as the basis for deeper discussion. Charges of racial discrimination are likely the most galvanising of political rhetoric, with greater emotional impact than, say, charges of government corruption or incompetence. Even a government with good intentions will face an uphill challenge to beat back unwarranted accusations of discrimination.
The coalition government, however, faces the dilemma that while Freedom House has intensified bombardment on the discrimination front, many coalition supporters remain displeased that too many “PPP people” are still in positions of official power.
And this displeasure is devoid of racial ill will. It is fueled by the perception and reality that opportunities and benefits seen as due since May 2015 remain out of reach because of the same people being in the same positions. In this political culture of ours, therefore, charges of discrimination against the coalition government could be equally matched by charges of undue and excessive accommodation of PPP political types.
Our political parties have always viewed the administrative apparatus (the so-called fourth arm of the state, comprising ministries, public agencies and corporations, commissions and other such entities) as essential to winning and maintaining political power. The de-professionalisation of the public service has been the stark outcome. Indeed, charges of racial discrimination are to a large extent not complaints about race but really about imbalances in political power. Would the PPP withdraw its charges of racial discrimination on state boards if AFC Indians were in the majority on most boards? The slow but increasing separation between race and power in local politics will complicate the search for solutions. Notwithstanding, all charges of discrimination must be taken on board.
I share the optimism that despite the ingrained suspicions and perceptions (not to mention political gamesmanship) that inflame feelings of discrimination in Guyana, proper government postures and strategies can correct systemic errors, reducing the problem to mostly resolving non-systemic isolated cases. To this end, a few broad strategies could be attempted in addition to the good governance approach advocated in the SN editorial.
One strategy is to depoliticise key administrative agencies and functions either through the establishment of robust independent bodies or through transparent preset decision-making procedures. Depoliticisation is a strategy whereby political figures and parties are deliberately withdrawn from key decision-making arenas and those arenas immunised as far as possible from partisan politics or government diktat. The constitution commissions are potential examples of this approach, of which the Public Procurement Commission and the Local Government Commission may be the frontrunners because of their greater administrative scope (at least on paper).
The strategy of using preset rules and formulas to make decisions in areas such as in the allocation of state resources and opportunities can increase the reality and perception of fairness. A lot of such rules already exist. They need to be better enforced and expanded.
I would also recommend the introduction of a government practice of preparing ethnic relations impact statements or, more broadly, social cohesion impact statements for ethnically-sensitive decisions, such as the closure of sugar estates and the award of large contracts. The preparation of these statements will force active consideration of the issue of discrimination.
Addressing racial discrimination in all its manifestations (perception, reality, and past impacts and disadvantages) will forever be a work in progress. But move we must. Challenges abound. Will racially-neutral or racially-blind policies and practices be acceptable even if these produce racial imbalances? Should we look at affirmative programmes to address existing imbalances? What should we do when racial identity and political identity do not intersect?
Yours faithfully,
Sherwood Lowe
