Dear Editor,
The preoccupation of Guyanese, both resident and abroad, with the recently held elections are rooted in much more than idle curiosity. Many at home are concerned about their freedom to speak and to have their voices heard, as in voting and having their votes counted and accounted for. Most of those abroad, having voted with their feet, are also concerned about their freedom to visit the homeland to connect with their family, start a business, vacation and/or retire without the fears from which they ran.
I realize these are bold claims but I hope you will stay with me as I present the argument that “over the last 65 years Guyanese have always voted in large numbers for either the restricted local options available or with their feet”. I offer two primary pieces of information: Guyana’s population and migration (UN International Migration Stock, 2019) and the rationally objective assessment of Simona Vezzoli, a non-Guyanese who presented her research findings at the National Library which was reported in the April 15, 2014 edition of Kaieteur News under the caption “Oxford Univer-sity researcher examines Guyana’s migra-tion trend.” A 2015 overview of this research is available on YouTube (Simona Vezzoli – Unpacking the ‘colonial dummy’)
Guyana’s population growth rate has been in a downward spiral since 1960, from annual increases of 3.5% in the 1950s down to 0.5% now, with periods of negative growth in the 1980s and 1990s. In the same period Guyana’s migration has gone from 0.6% to 2.0% of the population the bulk (82.5% in 2015) of the migrants are in the 20-64 age group. As a result, there are over 650,000 Guyanese migrants since 1960. In 2018 New York City estimated there were 138,000 Guyana-born residents (www.nyc.gov/immigrants/moia_annual_report_2018).
Vezzoli dis-aggregated Guyana’s migration pattern into three episodes: 1) the pre-independence period: 1953 to 1965, 2) the early experiments with independence period: 1965 to 1985, and 3) the persistent instability period: 1985 to 2013. Vezzoli’s seminal dissertation effort was to expand extant push-pull migration constructs, for colonies contemplating or in the process of transitioning to indepen-dent states. She did this by refining our understanding of the push influences in colonies/new states by going further than prior analyses which focused more on the pull influences of colonizer states. What I gleaned from this very well-conceived and diligently executed effort is in accord with my many conversations with Guyanese, both at home and abroad, whose families have migrated en masse.
Initially, Guyanese trickled into the UK during the 1950s for education and some stayed. Those numbers swelled as elec-toral tensions rose in Guyana and Britain began closing its border to colonial migrants; this was the first shuffling of Guyanese feet. A more concerted rush followed in the 1960s when both the US and Canada relaxed some of their discri-minatory migration laws. A significant number of these Guyanese emigrants were people deeply scarred by the racial violence and the authoritarian (commu-nist/socialist) rhetoric of the two major parties in the pre-independence years.
The initial panic was briefly abated in the immediate post-independence period when Guyanese were lured by remigration initiatives, independence fervour, and homesickness. However, soon thereafter, the Government’s intemperate policies: nationalization of 80% of the economic activity; militarization (over 100,000 in uniforms); paramountcy of the party; violent and coercive restrictions on freedom of thought, expression and movement; and rigged elections – led to a stampede of Guyanese into North Ameri-ca, the Caribbean, Brazil, Venezuela, Suriname, and the far reaches of the earth.
In the late 1980s, the mellowing influences of a shift to a more open economy, an improving sense of personal security, and the turn to external multi-lateral support slowed but did not quite corral the stampede. Instead, migration was now family consolidation abroad as political uncertainty and the decline in quality of life sustained the local push as families pulled from abroad. Change in the government in the early 1990s had a post-independence-like effect as remigra-tion initiatives, homesickness, and nationalistic fervour drew some back into the fold. However, the return of election tensions and violence, as well as narrowing doors across the USA and Canadian borders, kept families stumbling into these destinations.
Vezzoli’s effort has given me pause to think about our preoccupation with these current elections and their results. It crystallized the connection between elections and spikes in Guyanese migra-tion over the past 60 years. I was reminded of the instability, elevated distrust and general uncertainty around the time of elections that pushed so many into escaping their homeland. I found myself asking the question “Are these elections a foreshadow of another stampede, of voting feet?”
As we await the result of the recount I will remain optimistic, because; 1) the 20-64 year olds seem to be engaged in a fight to stay; and 2) the clamour for electoral and constitutional reforms is rising, and 3) some excellent solutions to these protracted and contentious electoral disputes are being advanced. I recommend “Electoral System Reform for a Diverse Nation: The Case of Guyana” (Kindle Books, Amazon.com) as an example of a very thoughtful contribution to understanding and addressing our election conundrum.
Yours faithfully,
Rory Fraser
