Dear Editor,
Having read Eric Phillips letter (SN,4/6/2020), I am curious as to what he meant by his statement: “Today, in Guyana, the primary deformity in our social contract lies in a winner-take-all constitution that imposes a ruling `ethnic minority’”. Is he referring to the coalition or the opposition as representing an ethnic minority? The latest census confirms that there is no “ethnic majority”, as in the past. But Eric seems to forget that it was the same system that allowed the coalition to win in 2015. This statement further implies that the coalition had no intention of playing fair. If me and Eric agreed to play a friendly game of cricket, it does not mean that in the middle of the game, sensing a loss, that he can seize the wickets, scrap the game, ask the umpires to leave and then accuse me of playing unfairly. That is not good sportsmanship. In the broader political context, avoiding a transparent verification is tantamount to stealing an election through sheer bullyism.
I am more curious though, about another statement in Eric’s letter: “This is a time for Guyanese to wake up to the reality that it is better to find solutions that benefit all, or to find separate ways for each ethnic group.” Perhaps Eric is thinking outside the box. Is he now suggesting that partition as an option out of this quagmire should be on the table for consideration?. It is not a novel idea, since it was introduced by elder statesman Eusi Kwayana in the 1960s. Perhaps Eric can provide some clarity.
Yours faithfully,
Baytoram Ramharack
