The prime ministerial candidate of the PPP/C for the 2020 elections, Brigadier Mark Phillips (ret.) has stated, ‘The fiduciary oversight of our economy was strong under the PPP/C and Guyanese had a clear understanding of where this nation was headed and how they would benefit. This is the security that will cause all Guyanese of all ethnicities to embrace the PPP/C at the upcoming polls. … as with this country’s commendable record for religious tolerance, if enough emphasis and resources are put towards a national programme for bridging the racial divide, this could be realised so that every person focuses on policies and not race at the next general elections in 2025’(Politicians need to tackle Guyana’s racial divide head-on. SN: 03/02/2020).
After over five decades of independent rule, two of which were recently under the PPP/C and ended in 2015 with its leader being dragged before the courts for racial electioneering, and with the impending 2020 elections being as, if not more, ethnically polarised, one wonders how the sentiment expressed by Mr. Phillips could be true. Furthermore, most Guyanese accept that the negative effects of our ethnic division must be brought under control if this country is to be properly managed and developed. It is, therefore, hard to believe that given the saliency of this issue, all those who have gone before and are at present in office have not placed sufficient emphasis and resources on the ethnic question. The fact that no solution has been found is not in itself an indication that a huge amount of resources has not been thrown at the problem: there is at present an entire ministry dedicated to ethnic unity. My opinion is that over the years the problem has been badly conceptualized – the wrong questions asked – and thus negative results have so far followed. This belief is further substantiated by the above quotation by a person who may soon be in a position of influence and who also asked the wrong questions. This intervention is intended to help clarify the situation.
My few and brief interactions with Mr. Phillips left me with the distinct impression that, not unlike his PPP/C prime ministerial predecessor, he is a person of goodwill who wants to do the best for his country. In countries with our ethnic/racial political dissonance, it is usual for ‘derogatory abuse’ to be thrown at one. It is a usual part of the punishment for straying from the flock and needs to be ignored, for the unexamined life is not worth living. So I wish the Brigadier all the best and my concern here is with the possible consequences of his beliefs. What follows is not based upon conjecture but is a synopsis of the refereed literature in the field, and I hope that any thoughts or responses will be similarly grounded and thus contribute to our developing a more appropriate paradigm with which to consider the Guyana situation.
Racial/ethnic allegiances develop differently and at present Guyana is essentially a bicommunal society in which some 80% of the electorate consistently votes for one of the two large ethnic parties. Mr. Phillips believes that this is wrong and has set himself the goal of establishing a situation wherein ‘every person focuses on policies and not race’ at elections time. He is not alone in this belief although I doubt that more than a handful of people will share his view that ending this practice could be accomplished in five years. Of course, his goal begs the important question of what is wrong with the population voting for their racial/ethnic group? Can this be and should it be prevented as suggested by the Brigadier? What are the benefits to be derived by preventing ethnic voting? Notwithstanding the various quarrels within the academic field, as I understand it the following is the general thrust of the literature when dealing with countries such as Guyana.
The logic of ethnic political competition
In all states with an ethnic cleavage efforts are made to be inclusive. This is particularly so where the groups are vociferous and active. Where a group is large it cannot be incorporated into the existing traditional parties. It becomes a political party and the result is that it has to be accommodated as a party not as a part of any party if the intention is to have a modern developing state. Why is this so?
This is not simply an issue about regime change and results from the logic of competitive ethnic politics where:
1. It is not possible for any state to sensibly modernize if a sufficiently large group is alienated and disgruntled.
2. In competitive politics leaders sell stories for votes in the hope that the leader with the best story will garner the most votes.
3. In such a competitive environment, politicians of all kinds are opportunistic.
4. But the stories told by all leaders must be sufficiently realistic as they relate to the contest and the interest of their constituencies.
5. In all multiethnic societies sufficient differences exist for racial perceptions to develop.
6. Where a racial group is small, the stories its leaders tell to gain support, though racially biased, must be politically sensible.
7. Yet if sufficiently agitated and of significant numbers, the traditional parties will have to accommodate the group in the ruling circles.
8. However, as the group becomes large enough, the stories its leaders tell become more radical.
9. The group becomes a political party that can no longer be accommodated within existing parties but only side by side with them.
10. To the extent that the constitutional arrangements ignore this development, tension, alienation, disturbances and underdevelopment result.
11. There is little point in blaming community leaders for in the competitive political environment, their stories fit and do win them maximum support.
12. There is little point in pleading for right-doing for with similar facts the opposite story can also be told.
13. Nowhere has this story not played out and it is a mistake to blame the outcome on anyone.
14. Power sharing becomes inevitable because of the logic of political cleavage in competitive democracies. (Orr, Scott. The Theory and Practice of Ethnic Politics: How What We Know about Ethnic Identity Can Make Democratic Theory Better. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Political Science Association, 2007).
As Orr claimed ‘a minority group that votes as a bloc is something of a curiosity when it makes up 1% of the population of a state, but an existential threat to (majoritarian) democracy when it makes up 40%’. Now, eschewing wild conjectures, perhaps the Brigadier can at the very least consider if he views Guyana’s political/ethnic context as stated in the list above. If not, what is his formulation of what is taking place in Guyana and how does he intend to deal with that situation? On the other hand, if Guyana is nearing the above how does he intend to use the greater focus and resources he requires to overcome the above difficulties of ethnic alienation, disgruntlement and under development?
