Nothing illustrates better the ethnic stresses in the society than the events in West Berbice and Region Six last week. What was also evident was how easy it is for irresponsible politicians – in this case two former senior military officers – to fan the flames of violence. They were put to shame by Mr Gladson Henry, the father of Isaiah and uncle of Joel, who made clear he was not supporting anything to do with violence. Requesting that protests be conducted peacefully, he said, “we cannot be fighting against one another.” He did not want the matter to turn political or racial, he told the media, he only wanted those who were responsible to “pay for the crime.” His dignity, forbearance and humanity gave everyone an insight into what race relations could be in this country if everyone behaved as he did.
Even without that, the two highest leaders in the main opposition were given a lesson in what they should have said by none other than PNCR Chair Volda Lawrence, whose statements at Hopetown were exemplary. It was only following accusations from the Home Affairs Minister and others that Messrs Granger and Harmon had fomented unrest with their comments, that the PNCR was persuaded to issue a belated press release. It denied the allegations, and implored “all Guyanese” to remain calm. “The Party asks its members, supporters and friends to continue to conduct themselves in a lawful and peaceful manner for the safety of our sons and daughters,” read the statement. It was too little too late to be taken seriously.
By Friday it had been reported that the roads had been cleared, and that the army was escorting those who had been stranded to their destinations. For the moment, therefore, the situation is under control, although whether that will continue today when the two Henry cousins are buried, remains to be seen. One can only hope that everyone will respect Mr Gladson Henry’s wishes. What can be said is that at least the temporary lull is a tentative sign for optimism that with sufficient public pressure on political operatives speaking in inflammatory mode, in conjunction with a robust enough response from the Joint Services, such events can sometimes be managed so a crisis point is not reached.
These kinds of occurrences and others of their ilk also require that all crimes such as murder, grievous bodily harm and lesser forms of assault be assiduously investigated by the police and the guilty parties charged. While President Irfaan Ali has indicated his intention to request UK and UN assistance, it is unlikely that foreign officers would be much help in this situation except perhaps in the forensics department. The interviewing of witnesses and suspects would have to be done by local investigators for reasons which require little elaboration. Upgrading the capacity of the Police Force, however, is another matter entirely, but that is a long-term project.
The other thing which is extremely important is that people of all races should feel they can depend on the police when their safety is under threat. We should not be hearing stories such as that relayed to our Berbice reporter by a tourist about police inaction. Reports such as these need to be followed up immediately by the hierarchy of the force, and the officers involved dealt with condignly.
One would be naïve to believe, especially given the mindset of the present PNCR leadership, that even if there is no recurrence of the West Berbice violence there might not be other occasions when we all have to hold our combined breath in case we are taken over the cliff edge. The location of such violent protests will inevitably make a difference to the government’s ability to deal with them, as will be whatever triggered them.
In terms of the larger question underlying what has happened, it has to be acknowledged that restoring race relations to some kind of equilibrium in this society requires effort all around, especially from the political establishment – as well as time. In the end it is an issue which no outsider can solve; it is for Guyanese alone to find the formula for coming to terms with the other ethnic groups among whom they live, and for them to acknowledge the intrinsic humanity of every single member of those groups, whatever their differences.
President Ali has said, “We have to see how we can work with the community to improve community life, community relations and to ensure that all our Guyanese brothers and sisters, everyone, has a better standard of living, a better way of living … We want to build relationships and we want to build on programmes and policies that touch the lives of all Guyanese.” In the first place, community relations are a matter for the communities themselves, not for the government. It is for the former to decide how they want to go about developing strategies to confront our racial divide, and create the space for dialogue on the matter. The less government involves itself in that, the better.
Community exchanges which are directed towards creating understandings can to some extent provide insulation against our dysfunctional political structures and the negative influence of most of our politicians, who have been talking out of two sides of their mouths for more than six decades.
Secondly, while a higher standard of living will be welcomed by everyone, it still will not address our basic problem, although it may tamp down somewhat the unfocused anger of those who would otherwise be in poverty. The head of state, however, did advert to something which does lie within the government’s purview, and that is the application of the law. The Racial Hostility Act which has been on the statute books for some years has been little utilised in relation to hate speech, and it is time it was. Far more important, perhaps, is the cybercrime legislation to which he also alluded, given that the social media play such a huge role in the lives of young people especially, and where a lot of the racial abuse is carried. The public expression of ethnic hatred cannot be allowed to become acceptable.
Apart from the approaches mentioned above, creating a context conducive to addressing our race issues in a more comprehensive way lies exclusively in our politicians’ hands. It requires the fashioning of a political framework which is flexible and which all sides can agree on, given that our problem has always been intimately connected to the character of our parties. In the absence of this, there are no official institutions or agencies which will make dramatic progress on their own. The Ministry of Social Cohesion of the last government was useless, while the Ethnic Relations Commission is best suited to individual cases of discrimination, or problems involving fairly small groups in localised settings.
Reforming the constitution in a way that both major parties in particular feel they have a stake in a genuinely democratic system is not something which will be easy, and will almost certainly have to be tackled piecemeal. As it is all our politicians while mouthing platitudes about inclusiveness or meritocratic principles, for the most part only ever apply one criterion for government appointments – loyalty. That is not the political foundation which makes for good race relations.
The last government never even bothered to pay lip service to its manifesto promises, and whatever else can be said about it, a large number of its appointments had nothing to do with merit. What the last eighteen months revealed, however, was that APNU’s senior leadership had no grasp of what even our flawed democracy required; their modus operandi had more in common with a military line of action than a political line of abiding by the rule of law. Democracy, as has often been observed, is about compromise, and, it might be added, if necessary a retreat from a position. Neither concept is in Mr Granger’s or Mr Harmon’s vocabulary. Political stability will provide the basis for achieving ethnic stability, but the two opposition leaders demonstrated last week that they were prepared to exploit racial tensions for political ends.
The present government too has not distinguished itself on the inclusive front, with its signal that for political reasons it will probably dismiss the head of the EPA whose qualifications cannot be gainsaid; with its shameless games in relation to the deputy speakership; and its nonsensical excuses in respect of appointments to state boards because of APNU’s illegality allegations. It seems to forget that its own former president was writing in the media until fairly recently this year that the PNCR had rigged the 2015 election, even although it had been deemed free and fair by international observers. In addition, of course, with its Marxist-Leninist inspired constitution, it feels that as the vanguard party it is the only one which should be in power. Not a great deal of room for large-scale compromise there either.
Everyone likes to quote the country’s motto: One People, One Nation, One Destiny. We’re certainly one nation and are recognised as such internationally. And everyone would consider that we have one destiny, although there might not be much agreement on the direction we should pursue. But one people? We’re not there yet.
