Dear Editor,
Politics in Guyana has gone through a series of rapid changes over the last one hundred years, from a former expansionist government of the then British colonial empire, to a self-sustaining, independent and democratic government. Generally conceived to be better than being held in captivity by chains, freedom was fought for relentlessly against the injustices faced by our ancestors. Establishing a “people’s government” was hailed as the solution to the turmoil and hardships experienced under imperial captivity. And so, democracy under constitutional rule was adopted and practiced.
However, I’m afraid that Guyana’s democracy is at a point where it resembles anything but a people’s government. Of course, people determine their representatives and what sort of government they want through the electoral process. But the Guyanese context is a unique one whereby people typically elect according to their kind, i.e., ethnic or racial identity. So, a specific group of people of a specific economic class and identity are in a constant state of political rivalry because of this phenomenon, though clearly democratically consented but not wholly representative.
There is evidently an oligarchical establishment that grounds itself firmly on Guyana’s ethnic tension between Indo-Guyanese and Afro-Guyanese. The political class, by which I mean notable politicians, are very much aware of this. It works to their favour given their respective party’s history bearing significance on an ethnic group. When it comes to the political behemoths though, for all the eloquently articulated verbal and written prose about ensuring equality and harmony for “all Guyanese”, we see the contrary in their methods and actions. Their methods attempt to mask the ingrained social antagonism that exists. This antagonism tends to give way to undemocratic rule, no matter which of the two major parties is in executive power. It can even justify it. To illustrate, the expression “we must ensure they do not get back power” is one of many examples of people organizing themselves to support authoritarian rule. So, how do we restore faith in democracy while ensuring positive ethnic relations? Several things should happen.
Firstly, a cultural shift needs to occur in politics. By this, I mean our understanding of how politics works in Guyana should be challenged and undermined where necessary. The state of a polity should not define what it ought to be. There are reasons for why Guyanese politics is the way it is. To remark, for instance, “I don’t understand why Guyanese vote for party rather than issues”, is to demonstrate unfamiliarity with Guyanese political history. The people vote for race because racial politics is embedded in that history. But it wasn’t always like this. Consider that just before independence renowned Guyanese leaders, the late Cheddi Jagan and the late Forbes Burnham, were once fighting in brotherhood for a nationalism premised on racial unity and equality for all—in its true sense—against the then common enemy, the British empire. However, these intellectual pioneers of Guyanese nationalism broke mutual relations based on issues of trust. Their biological characteristics, such as their skin colour and hair texture, became the basis of a different kind of politics, one that would eventually become racialized. Consequently, the political system became a way to amplify the ethnic tensions we saw developing then. Today, we are witnessing its effects hindering new attempts of ensuring national unity.
Secondly, there needs to be a sound political educational mandate. This must be established at the national level to ensure accessibility. Such an enormous task is not limited to Government to execute but organizations and individuals can assist with disseminating material that can aid with informing the populace about their political institutions and civic duties. For a nation that merely follows a preconceived notion of what politics is meant for, without examination, would find itself stuck in a quasi-political project that lacks—to borrow from Kant—an end-in-itself.
Lastly, a change of regime caused by a radical cultural shift can bring about a democracy that’s issued-centred. However, some people think that they must become participants in the existing political system to bring this shift into existence. I disagree. The role of partisan politics is to debate over policies and proposals which affect the general welfare of the people, and the ethics embedded in these to determine which is the best way to achieve certain virtues, whether educational or economic in nature. But partisan politics will not nourish a nation’s soul, or the psyche. To develop a nation requires so much more than material resources, holding office, and growing GDP values; it also requires people evaluating their ethics. As Plato said, ethics, which is intricately connected with justice, is “no trifle, but the foremost thing”.
In addition to an ethical education, the polity needs more than ever an education about why politics should matter—a political education. We do not have that, except rudimentary approaches that touch on the superficial ideals of democracy—the ‘Vote Like a Boss’ campaign, for instance, though extremely useful, focuses on the voting process which is not the same as promoting value-based politics.
To overcome the many challenges in Guyana requires an effort and collective will that surpasses short-term political goals. There needs to be a sustained civic education project that focuses on direct empowerment of citizens through innovative ideas to make a meaningful impact.
Yours faithfully,
Ferlin F. Pedro
