Dear Editor,
I want to say from the inception that I am not a supporter of any of the political parties in Guyana. Back in 1974 I was a member of the PPP, but I left when it started with its “Critical Support” for the Burnham Dictatorship in 1975. I then supported the nascent WPA, but I ceased to do so when they morphed into a pathetic confused disreputable opportunistic entity, as the WPA’s spokesperson David Hinds’ recent writings manifestly illustrate. Hinds has had not one public word of criticism for Mingo’s blatant 2020 electoral deceptions, and instead has demanded “the scrapping of the election”; “the destruction of the ballot boxes”; “the installation of Granger as president and the PPP man as Prime Minister”. Ironically when I lived in London, I was involved in the funding discussions that brought the very same David Hinds to England to address public meetings about Guyana, on behalf of the WPA Support Group (UK).
The APNU+AFC Government is in effect a de facto PNC Government. We delude ourselves if we think otherwise. The PNC was a British and American “Cold War” creation. There is also American State Department evidence available online, that the PNC was funded at least until the 1970’s by the Americans. British horses voted for the PNC in the rigged elections in the 60’s, 70’s, and 80’s, as exposed by the BBC in their two “World in Action” television documentaries, which can be viewed at:
1. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eyyROGJOjLI
2. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dBN0v15jC4k
What the current PNC leadership has failed to appreciate, is that unlike in the 60’s to the 80’s period when they happily rigged elections with the connivance of Western Powers, the “Cold War” is over, so the West no longer needs to keep out the now non-existent Soviets, and mobile smart phone technology now exists, so all of the PNC’s current perfidious electoral rigging actions have been posted on social media globally for all to see and condemn. They are no longer hidden from the average .
Clearly there is a need to change from the current Westminster type of political system, in order to span the ethnic divide that colonialism’s and imperialism’s deliberate “Divide and Rule” policies have bequeathed us, so that we the “victims” can be rid of such self-destructive mindsets. At present either one or the other of the two main ethnic groups feels marginalised upon the accession to power of a party perceived to be of another ethnicity. The AFC had prior to 2015 held out some hope for a move away from that entrenched ethnic voting position, but they have now destroyed that hope for another generation by their sociopathic antics in Government, and they have caused Guyana to be more ethnically divided than when they came into existence.
Various persons have recently been calling for a Government of National Unity – it is interesting that many of these same people have been strangely silent on the need for such a Government when the PNC are in office, as they have been for thirty-one of Guyana’s some fifty-four post-independence years. Nevertheless there is a clear need for inclusive racial governance – a Government of Ethnic Unity. A distinction needs to be made between a Government of National Unity and a Government of Ethnic Unity. The former is really a Government of Political Party Unity. The latter is about ownership of the government by all ethnicities.
Given the level of open hostility between the two major parties, a Government of Political Party Unity is doomed from the start. Rather a Government of Ethnic Unity is required. As a committed socialist I would have liked to have seen class consciousness in Guyana, but that is nowhere on the horizon for the foreseeable future. I am suggesting as a way forward Constitutional Reform utilising a constitutional formula along the lines of a bespoke Bosnia and Herzegovina type constitutional arrangement, which could be the answer for Guyana. In Bosnia and Herzegovina following the fratricidal war between centuries old neighbours – Serbs (Russian Orthodox); Bosniac (Muslim); and Croats (Catholic), the General Framework Agreement for Peace in Bosnia and Herzegovina [also known as the Dayton Agreement] was signed on the 14th December 1995. Annex 5 of this Agreement is the Constitution of Bosnia and Herzegovina. Under Article 5 of the Constitution provision is made for a Presidential Triumvirate, with a Serb; a Bosniac; and a Croat – all sharing equal presidential powers, and deciding on policy based on majority voting. Under this arrangement all the major ethnicities/religions are always represented at the Presidential level. However, Article 5 has come under criticism from the European Court of Human Rights, as only a person from one of the designated ethnicities/religions can be President.
In the context of Guyana, the major ethnicities [and the main source of inter-ethnic conflict] are the Afro and Indo Guyanese. The third President could be drawn from one of the other ethnicities in Guyana, which would answer the criticism levelled against the Bosnia and Herzegovina Constitution by the European Court of Human Rights. Unlike in Bosnia and Herzegovina where each President represents different geographical areas, the suggestion in a Guyanese context would be that each Political Party would individually present its own three Presidential Candidates – [namely a self-defined African, Indian, and an “Other” Presidential Candidate] – for a General Election, along with similarly self-defined Vice Presidents, in much the same way that a sole candidate is currently presented at election time. The party gaining the biggest share of the vote would then have its three Presidential Candidates simultaneously appointed as coterminous Presidents, and as in the Bosnia and Herzegovina model, all sharing equal presidential powers, and deciding on policy based on majority voting between themselves. Between the three “Presidents”, the Chair position would be rotated every six months, in surname alphabetical order. With the Chair being the President officiating at public events during his/her six month remit. This triumvirate [troika] system may sound complicated, but it is not as complicated as it may at first appear. If the people in Bosnia and Herzegovina can understand it, I cannot see why the similarly highly literate people in Guyana cannot do so as well. This model will additionally potentially mean better presidential decisions will be made, as three craniums, not just one, will be involved in all presidential decisions. It is unfortunate that such a solution has to be resorted to, but until Guyanese move away from racial mindsets, it seems that the only viable option is to ensure that both major ethnic groups are equally represented concurrently at the Presidential level, and so obviate ethnic conflict.
A strong case can also be made out for a constitutional requirement for ethnic parity at the Ministerial level, with an equal number of Afro and Indo Guyanese Ministers, regardless of whichever party forms the Government.
There is also an urgent need to reform the Civil Service and the so called “Disciplined Services” to make them demographically representative of the general populace. In much the same way that progressives in Britain have rightly called for a multi-ethnic British Police Force, Civil Service, and Judiciary, to reflect the ethnic groupings in Britain, the same needs to be done in Guyana. There can be no racial inclusivity unless all ethnicities are adequately represented in all spheres of Government.
Any Government implementing the above constitutional reform process would have the support of the vast majority of the Guyanese populace, eager as they are to be rid of this ever present ethnically driven social and economic disruption, and the resultant brain flight (drain). An opposition party which opposes such proposed reform, would be hard pressed to publicly justify their opposition to it. Hinds has called for the destruction of the 2020 ballot boxes, but what should be called for, is the destruction of the colonialist/imperialist divide and rule legacy box in which Guyana’s population are incarcerated. The above reform would go a long way to achieve that. Let’s hope that the next Government has the sagacity to undertake this task.
On the occasion of the fortieth anniversary this year of Dr. Walter Rodney’s murder at the hands of the PNC, this crucial constitutional reform would be the most appropriate way of marking this anniversary, given Rodney’s firm opposition to ethnically divisive politics.
I would like to end by unreservedly commending the “Guardians of Democracy” for so self-sacrificingly protecting the ballot boxes during this protracted electoral charade, and I trust that they will be given due recognition from any incoming Government.
Yours faithfully,
Lalu Hanuman
Attorney-at-Law
Barbados
