Sometimes one has to wonder whether our politicians live in the same country as the rest of us. There was President Irfaan Ali on Tuesday appealing in impassioned terms for the unification of the people of this country. The occasion was the unveiling of commemorative stamps marking the centenary of Janet Jagan’s birth. There was a certain incongruity about this, since while no one can deny that Mrs Jagan played a hugely significant role in the political history of Guyana and had some remarkable achievements to her credit, she could hardly be described as a unifying figure.
Questions of possible inappropriateness did not cause the Head of State any misgivings, however, and in emotional language he went on to make his plea to the nation: “I want to appeal to all of Guyana in the spirit of all those who came before us, those who are still with us, that it is time we stop reflecting in an empty way; the time has come for us in this country to reflect with honourable intentions, to reflect with a passion and a commitment to achieve what those who struggled selflessly, wanted to achieve, and that is the unification of our people.”
He then proceeded to enlighten his listeners about who he thought should be responsible for something so essential as unification to Guyana’s development. It turned out that this was none other than the politicians. “[T]his does not rest on the people out there, this rests entirely on the shoulder of leaders. We cannot lead without dignity, we cannot lead in a way that is disrespectful to the laws of our country,” he said. Elaborating on his theme, he was quoted as saying: “Today I ask all of Guyana, especially within our political landscape, to assume individually and collectively the role of achieving the unification of our people, and I assure you every single day of this government’s life will be spent dedicated to the task, it will be achieved, it must be achieved, we have to break down the invisible walls of disunity and bring our people together.”
Guyanese who are struggling to keep their heads above water in these pandemic times must be regarding our politicians on whom this duty is supposed to devolve with a rather dubious eye. Messrs David Granger and Joseph Harmon breaking down “the invisible walls of disunity”? Hardly. Seizing every opportunity to make this government’s life as difficult as possible? Probably. And then there is the President’s own administration which will not even speak to the main opposition at the moment. So what exactly will it be doing every single day to achieve “the unification of our people”?
But there is a more fundamental problem. What precisely do unity and unification mean? The President seemed to use the two words interchangeably, although they do not always denote the same thing in all contexts. Be that as it may, he seemed to be referring to unity among our various ethnicities. One cannot think that he is talking about the complete erosion of cultural traits and the emergence of an amorphous common culture; no one wants that, although every society, even this one, has a central core of shared values to qualify as a society at all.
That apart each ethnic group in this country has its own traditions, historical experiences and beliefs. The art of accommodating them all is to find a fairly flexible formula which will change over time as society evolves, and inevitably involves compromises of one sort or another. In other words, unity is not uniformity. In some ways Guyana has already worked out various accommodations. Religious groups in particular sometimes have conflicting beliefs, but all function within the framework of a secular society as enshrined in our constitution. As such, human rights law has come to provide the ethical underpinnings of some of our social legislation, even where it is in conflict with the tenets of one faith or another, although we have not followed that route to its logical conclusion. The simple things like food, dress and national holidays have never been a challenge, and under normal circumstances there is considerable interaction at various levels between the races.
Our most entrenched problems come because of the nexus between politics and ethnicity, and solving that problem really does lie in the hands of the politicians. President Ali did not specifically frame the issue in those terms, however, and so it is difficult to know what he meant when he said that unification rested on the shoulders of leaders. If it is that he was making an implied reference to what happened on West Coast Berbice, and that he considers that what leaders on all sides are required to do is ensure there is no racial strife in addition to which they should constantly stress the inherent value and rights of all groups, then he is not being very radical. Nor, it might be added, is he being very realistic. Genuine ethnic harmony in the long term cannot be achieved under the rule of one ethnic political party given the present constitutional provisions, no matter who that party may be.
Since both major political parties are identified with their ethnic bases, how does the Head of State think his base is perceived by the other side when he changes so many of their personnel with or without justification, but including the most qualified person in the country for the job of head of the EPA? Does he believe that anyone will take his words seriously? And how does he think many people will feel when he will not commit publicly in a talk on ‘ethnic unification’ to constitutional change? Or injecting autonomy into various institutions of government?
Now that they are out of office, APNU+AFC have suddenly found the virtues of shared governance, although it is not a proposition which has any appeal for the current incumbents in government. It might be added that it is not a format to be recommended, and in any case demographic changes in the not-so-distant future may in any case make it redundant. That notwithstanding, constitutional change of a fairly far-reaching kind is desperately needed, probably starting with electoral reform.
President Ali’s party has a reputation for control. If he is to have any hope of reducing ethnic tensions he has to show a preparedness to shrink the space government currently occupies, and start conversations with any number of groups in civil society about the kinds of changes which will be necessary to allow us to achieve a political equilibrium. It is only via that route that he has any hope of reaching, if not ‘ethnic unification’, at least a modus vivendi between the groups. The invisible walls will not crumble by wishful thinking.