Dear Editor,
Voices are being heard from various corners across the ethnic and political spectrum in Guyanese society. At times favourable and unfavourable to government, the voices have to do with governance – decision making, monitoring and evaluation, accountability, control and behaviour – at the upper echelons of state and government. Guyanese welcomed wholeheartedly, the ABC&EU countries’ strident involvement in the push for free and fair elections during the March to August 2020 period.
Notwithstanding the misplaced appeal by members of the Coalition administration at the time, the ABC&EU countries, including CARICOM governments, doubled down and stepped up the pressure in the face of spurious allegations and attacks about political interference in Guyana’s internal affairs. When one takes into consideration the long view of the meaning and significance of democracy, apart from an election, what we are yet to see is a push by the ABC&EU governments above and beyond elections in support of deepening of democracy against localized threats to their investments and their nationals here in Guyana.
In the circumstances, there should be no backsliding in respect to Guyana’s and America’s shared values and vital hemispheric and security interests. At the same time, it should be clear that Chinese investments in Guyana, and cooperation between the two countries, as exemplified in the Belt and Road Agreement, does not pose a challenge nor is aimed at derailing Guyana/US shared values. Guyana-US bilateral cooperation is critical to political stability in Guyana, as well as public safety and security, which are driven principally by racial and ethnic insecurity and divisive national politics. It is as if help was extended to the country solely to ‘stop the steal’ of the 2020 election and then to drop the ball, leaving the newly-elected administration to ‘paddle its own canoe’ as it headed into turbulent waters.
Just about one month after the newly elected Ali administration assumed office, threats to our fragile democracy emerged with disturbances in Region Five and more recently, at Golden Grove and Mon Repos. In the circumstances, it appears that the preferred approach by the ABC&EU governments is to leave the Ali administration alone with the right to be its own final judge in pursuit of its national policies and international treaty obligations. In other words, unlike their role following the 2020 election, the ABC&EU countries seems to have adopted an ambivalent position as regards governance, leaving the Ali administration to tame those political forces who seem capable of transforming impulses of violence and an ideology of ethnic prejudices into action.
In any event, the moral and practical issues associated with any shape or form of western involvement to prevent heightened inter-ethnic conflict in Guyana and boost good governance is too complex to be resolved without much debate and deliberation at the national level and with overseas partners. In a society where disinformation and the lack of trust at the political level has long been its Achilles heel, the most evasive and unconquerable mission for decades has been national unity. Truth be told, since independence in 1966, every government has adopted a different approach to tackling this social and political dilemma. None has succeeded so far. Trust in politics is difficult to come by. According to Alan Clarke, a former British Conservative MP; “There are no true friends in politics. We are all sharks circling and waiting for traces of blood in the water.” We have seen this manifesting itself time and again in Guyana.
A more persistent narrative framed by the opposition is that the PPP/C administration utilizes the politics of race and ethnicity as a means of winning votes and staying in power. On the other hand, the PNC has been accused of playing the racial card as a means of keeping their supporters sensitized and mobilized in readiness for political action. Regrettably, it has not dawned on the political opposition that neither theoretically nor practically, racism cannot be fought with racism. Our own national experience, along with that of other nations have demonstrated that the road to political power is fraught with catastrophic consequences in racially divided societies such as ours. The challenging and seemingly uncompromising political stand-off notwithstanding, it is always better to engage rather than disengage at the political level on how best to open up a national conversation that would facilitate more listening rather than plenty of talk, and a ‘willingness to sift the sanctified lies’. The big question is; how can such a conversation emerge without a mutually acceptable level of trust being in place?
Engagement can take place at the political, parliamentary and grass roots levels. Engagement at the two latter levels can lay the basis for engagement at the political level. The outreaches and follow-up meetings between government and residents at Buxton and South Georgetown are examples of engagements at the grassroots level. Then there is the pervasive influence of the business class. Make no mistake about it, that influence is strong at the top. The Local Content law is more about greater opportunities for the business class rather than uplifting the economic and social wellbeing of the poor and marginalized. That is government’s responsibility, not the business classes.
At the same time, questions have been raised whether the rich in Guyana are doing enough to help the poor, and whether it is in their interest not to do so. There is a view peddled by some, that it is fundamentally African-Guyanese who are marginalized or dispossessed and impoverished. To the contrary, those who have travelled around Guyana would know that Amerindians, mixed race and Indo-Guyanese are also caught in the poverty trap. Experience has shown that individual actors would inevitably come into dispute with others about various things, and human nature being what it is, both would tend to think that they are in the right. This could lead to unnecessary and potentially destructive conflicts; that is why, with such eventualities, government is required to pass fair judgments and to back them up with reasonable and acceptable policies.
Unity in diversity should not be viewed only in relation to cultural and religious practices, it should also be framed in a political and ideological context having regard to Guyana’s national peculiarities. The power and influence of African-Guyanese, as manifested by their numbers in parliament and at the local government level, has the potential of playing a constructive role for national development, how that power and influence are exercised is another matter. Engagements about how to share our newly found wealth in a manner that, like justice, must not only done, but seen to be done especially by those who, for one reason or another, feel disadvantaged.
Conditions have now emerged for African and Indian Guyanese who believe they are marginalized and caught in the poverty trap to realize their full potential. All those who fall into that social category and who are producers and manufacturers must be given technical assistance to formulate realistic and implementable business plans and project proposals. Cumulatively, these plans and projects should be combined to realize a Black Agenda for National Development (BAND). Strategic alliances should be sought with Indian producers and manufacturers for economic and social advancement. Inter- communal engagements and exchanges should be encouraged with a view sharing experiences on how to start up and grow a business. And the communities must select their own representatives and not have them parachuted from outside.
Government should make targeted, accountable and fungible resources available on a first come first serve basis undoubtedly, there will be inherent challenges, but with democratic formulation of appropriate policies and deeper social, cultural economic integration at the regional level much can be accomplished.
Sincerely,
Clement J. Rohee
