Dear Editor,
In his letter, “It is imperative for all Guyanese to rethink their political approach to Guyana’s new reality” (SN 1-4-22) Mr. Tacuma Ogunseye refers to an old discussion between the WPA and ROAR on their claim to be a “multiracial” party, which we contested. Contrary to what Ogunseye avers, it was not merely the lack of electoral support that caused ROAR to question their “multiracial” claims after 1988, but the absence of individuals in their executive who identified as representing Indian Guyanese interests. WPA executive Eusi Kwayana contested our claim by insisting that Dr. Rupert Roopnaraine was more “Indian” than most. His “proof” was that Dr. Roopnaraine had done a documentary on the Cove and John Ashram.
At a time when Indian Guyanese still constituted a majority, we returned to first principles to further explain our position. We pointed out that there was a semantic confusion in Guyana between “multi-racial/ethnic” parties and “non-racial/ethnic” parties, and it has twisted us into all sorts of political contortions. A multi-racial/ethnic party can only be one that, a priori, accepts the validity of racial/ethnic interests; and secondly, has within it, individuals who are willing to overtly represent those interests. In ethnic polities, the people generally demand leaders from their own ethnic groups. Walter Rodney was the exception that proved the rule. Multiethnic parties can be a coalition of self-identified racial/ethnic parties, as with UNMO in Malaysia (Malays, Chinese and Indians); or through
self-identified caucuses, as in the Ameri-can Democratic Party (Congressional Black and Hispanic Caucuses). In retrospect, we can discern that the PPP between 1950 and 1955 was a multiethnic party.
By not explicitly acknowledging that ethnic interests needed to be addressed by ethnic leaders after Rodney’s assassination, the WPA, in 1992, joined the PPP and the PNC to assert they were “non-racial” parties. That is, they were above the epiphenomenon of ethnicity/race and each of their leaders could speak for all groups with Platonic disinterestedness. Never mind that leaders from groups outside the individual parties core constituencies were reviled as “tokens” for decades. The WPA, at the time, really resented ROAR’s assertion that the party was seen as a “Black Nationalist” party by Indian Guyanese. The route that ROAR took in 2000 was to declare itself as an ethnic party – Indian Guyanese – that was willing to work with other ethnic parties even to form “coalitions of commitment” on a common programme rather than the “coalitions of convenience” that the 1964 PNC-UF coalition exemplified.
With the change of demographics from 2009 that denied any one party an absolute majority from one ethnic base, we have pointed out that each of the major parties can only win a democratic election if they each receive substantial cross-over votes from other ethnic groups – either directly or through coalitions. This, we suggest, can offer the legitimacy to govern with two modifications of their present practice. First, they should accept ethnic caucuses that meet separately when “their” issues arise then present their proposals to the party. Secondly, there should be “ethnic impact statements” formulated prior to the promulgation of all government programs and subsequent “ethnic impact audits” after implementation. In conclusion, since to assert “we ought” implies “we can”, with Ogunseye now saying after the events of the last three years, that we ought to “commit to a new national engagement where one speaks for all and all for one”, does he believe all Guyanese have transcended their ethnic affinities? And will the WPA, for instance, denounce those who call African Guyanese leaders in the PPP, “House Negroes”?
Sincerely
Ravi Dev
