In his address to the nation after the 1964 elections, which brought his People’s National Congress (PNC) to government in coalition with the United Force, Forbes Burnham made an impassioned presentation about race/ethnicity in Guyana. He referred to the ‘apparent’ ethnic cleavage that existed in Guyana that had been brought about by the dishonest, deceitful, opportunistic, racist propaganda and policies of the PPP that had been able to convince a large section of the population to vote against his party. He claimed that all the peoples of Guyana, the Chinese, Amerindians, Portuguese, Indians, Europeans and Africans are equally important and would be treated as such by the PNC. According to him, the enemies of Guyana wanted to see it divided, but beginning immediately his government would behave fairly and will demonstrate to PPP supporters that there was nothing to fear but all to celebrate. The ‘apparent’ racial cleavage would thus be overcome as the country proceeded with its next major challenge – winning its independence from Britain.
Based upon his analysis and expectations, Burnham must have died a most disappointed man in 1985. It is, however, possible to forgive him for when he was waxing lyrical about his intentions to end racism in Guyana scholars were only beginning to conceive of a path to democratic representative government for countries such as ours. Furthermore, not only he but all those who have followed him have suffered a similar fate, for in 2020 not only has the ethnic problem not been solved but it is as virulent as it ever was suggesting that what Burnham thought was ‘apparent’ was and is indeed very real. Fortunately, now in the third decade of the 21st century studies abound that suggest that much of what is taking place are outcomes derived from extant social structures that are beyond our capacity to prevent unless we first develop the will to make fundamental governance changes. Yet, the above post of Burnham’s presentation that recently came to my inbox sought to present him as prophetic of the evil that is inherent in the PPP, and both the major political parties are still wallowing in the same mindset: Guyana’s poor condition resulted from the evil intent of the other side!
This column has persistently warned Guyanese about their precarious political situation and made suggestions as to the way forward, and recently persons have been requesting that I present my view of what would be sensible political management arrangements in Guyana. I was about to do so, but since my criticism of the reform suggestions of others has been their assumption that there is a useful common understanding of the problem that needs to be solved, this column will give a brief of my understanding of problem.
The first and maybe most important point has already been made: Guyana has no option but to make important governance changes if it wants to have democratic development. Secondly, the main parties are already threatening to stay in power for forty years if they succeed at the elections: that is not democratic and under the current arrangement there exists a real possibility of their doing so. Thirdly, although the majoritarian ideology that has been bequeathed to us by our former colonial masters gives the party that wins the elections by even a single vote the moral and legal right to rule, I have argued in the ‘That 40% existential threat’ (SN: 27/11/2019) that in ethnic configurations such as Guyana politically it will not be allowed to do so. Fourthly, my wish to be ruled by my primordial peers is a natural right: to remove it is to take away my freedom as a social being. Fifthly, alienating those who wish to participate in the political process by their ethnic representatives cannot be good for development and thus majoritarianism must be eschewed in favour of consensual democratic arrangements that provide appropriate communal arrangements that allow the smallest ethnic group the freedom to determine its own existence.
At a practical level Guyana is not alone in this kind of ethnic dilemma and while in modern times the problem and its solutions have become more obvious, yet thousands of persons have lost their lives in useless ethnic confrontations. Why is this so? I believe that at the base of this incapacity to voluntarily change in a timely manner is an admixture of ethnic loyalty and oligarchic control. Over years, the leaderships of parties build up all kinds of ideological baggage and only co-opt those of their ilk to the leadership. Where only two such parties represent two large ethnic groups, the iron law of oligarchy is coupled to ethnic loyalty and gives the leaderships an inordinate amount of power. It appears to me that success against these oligarchs is possible only when they are severely weakened in a crisis for example.
Thus, in the case of Northern Ireland, retired US Senator George Mitchell took 700 days to negotiate the Good Friday Agreement that ended the battle that cost thousands of Protestants and Catholics their lives. ‘The negotiations took a critical turn when Billy Wright, the leader of a unionist group who was strongly against the peace process, was assassinated in prison by members of an Irish republican group. Facing escalating violence, Mitchell decided to set a firm deadline for the end of the negotiations. … This strategy, while a desperate measure, forced both parties to reexamine their positions and face the potential of having to go in front of the public and explain why the negotiations failed. Ultimately, this one bold move became a turning point in resolving this centuries-old conflict’
(https:// www.pon.harvard.edu/daily/negotiating-the-good-friday-agreement/).
So long as the oligarchic leaderships of the PNC and PPP were strongly in the driving seat, i.e. presenting to their supporters hope that their entrenched vision of reality was likely to prevail, there was no stopping them. But now that they are both weak: the PPP, whose grand strategy for taking government is fading with every passing day, and the PNC, who having failed to fulfill its manifesto commitment to change the system, is now precariously placed and hoping that my assessment of the PPP’s current position is correct. This is the time for true democrats to act in the interest of all the people.
henryjeffrey@yahoo.com
