Dear Editor,
In responding to Ravi Dev`s letter of October 9, 2020: `African Ethnic Security Dilemma has resolved itself’’, let me first of all acknowledge the ethical and intellectual nature of Ravi`s engagement, unlike many of those who merely troll on social media and comment on letters.
I have wondered whether Ravi and I were talking past each other, rather than to each other, by virtue of what I discerned to be our differing perspectives on what is the problem confronting Guyana. I am now convinced that it is indeed the case, hence this response will be dedicated to highlighting that fact and restating my perspective.
Before addressing the issue of our differing perspectives, I need to address Ravi`s persistent attempt to define me as a Marxist and ascribe to himself the right to determine how I should be thinking. While I see nothing wrong in being a Marxist, no one should ascribe to another a label in an attempt to define that person and therefore seek to determine how others should see, and relate to, that person. Let the people of their own volition decide who I am. They have no lesser access to my commentaries and writings. More than that, Ravi does not simply seek to define my epistemological groundings. He attempts to deconstruct and negate my position on the grounds that it seems not to be grounded in the methodological approach that he ascribed to me. He seeks to box me in, then proceeds to destroy the box in an attempt to rescue me from my own folly. I see this as ‘straw-housing’, that is to attempt to establish the existence of the non-existent and subsequently claim to have demolished it. And, of course, all the while creating a false impression for public consumption and diversion.
Now to the substantive difference. Notwithstanding Ravi`s theoretical postulation that the “African Ethnic Security Dilemma has resolved itself” that is not the state of mind of the African Guyanese, as I discern it from my regular contact with them, hence his conclusion, in my view, is not reflective of their (our) reality. Whether Ravi is right or wrong is irrelevant. People have to be dealt with in the context of their reality, even if their reality is a false perception. It is their reality anyhow that will inform their behavior and relations.
Ravi surmises that Guyana`s problem is reflected in the insecurity derived from political ethnic dominance and the imbalances in the coercive arms of the state. With that I disagree. However, the fertile soil of our problem, its primary source, is simply our ethnic differences, our historical cultural differences, including our belief systems, values etc. Of greater concern, however, is the secondary source, that is the antagonistic nature of our problem which is grounded in the evolution of Guyana’s ethnic relations. Our ethnic relations within the nation state are built on discriminatory economic policies and oppressive relations between and among the ethnic groups as exemplified by the presence of the Indigenous peoples and the arrivals of the other ethnic groups (Europeans through to East Indians) and the manner in which they were pitted against each other and allotted positions/ ranking in the evolving stratified socio-economic system. This ossified foundation is reinforced by the superstructural elements of our society, including the psyches (prejudices, stereotyping complexes et al) of the various ethnic groups/races.
The Guyanese dilemma cannot be addressed unless those causal factors are identified and the structural and institutional elements of the society addressed in an attempt to accommodate our inherent differences, and transform the discriminatory, oppressive and inequitable environment (socio-economic structures and institutions) in which we seek to coexist.
The usual quietude of our society merely represents the latent state of our chronic discordant, incohesive and volcanic society. Elections represent a volcanic eruption and in no way equates to a mere plebiscite based on ideological, policy and programmatic choices. It comes down to the different psychological states of mind which sum up the different realities that we perceive and live.
Ravi is patently wrong when he concludes that the ins and outs of the major parties between 1992 and 2015 reflects a new dynamic, hence a resolution of the problem. First, the frequency of those ins and outs are insufficient to scientifically determine a change in our political behaviour. There was change in 1992, 2015, and questionably so in 2020, three changes in 28 years with one party retaining dominance for 23 of those years. He also failed to acknowledge that the emergence of the APNU+AFC coalition facilitated the traditional ethnic voting patterns given the composition and pull of the AFC`s leadership. The Charrandass debacle best exemplifies that reality. Dev`s attempt to identify the change as evidence of ethnic political fluidity is therefore unfounded and patently wrong. Ethnic voting is still dominant and in an electoral system based on plurality such as Guyana`s, it is likely to perpetuate ethnic dominance and all that Guyana has become. In fact, the 2020 election cycle, and more particular the post-election events, to date, support this contention. There is no question of being “ahistorical”, the more things have changed, the more they have remained reflective of the antagonistically stratified Guyana with the alignment of forces reflective of the plantation and colonial past that form the foundation of post-independence Guyana.
Dev accepts this reality by virtue of the changes he identified as necessary for his new-found democracy to flourish in Guyana.
In those circumstances, a democracy that is built on an electoral system that facilitates dominance rather than inclusion, in a situation where the other elements of democracy (responsible and responsive conduct of governance) plus a free press are absent, the democracy cannot be realized, thus making it dysfunctional and the elections, as they are, equally irrelevant to the intended aims and objectives of a democracy.
Yours faithfully,
Vincent Alexander
