Dear Editor,
I refer to the content of the Sunday Stabroek editorial of March 12, titled “Hate-speech”. The editorial as a whole is a good basis upon which to assess the current political situation in Guyana.
Stabroek News informs us in relation to an alleged public statement made by Tacuma Ogunseye: “there is a more fundamental problem which Mr Ogunseye is certainly not concerned with, because it has more of a purely political than an ethnic character, and that is the fact that the government will not give the opposition any space to function either in Parliament or in local government, even where it is required in the Constitution. It presumably justifies this to itself following the events of 2020, when there was an attempt to deny the PPP/C its victory in the election of that year. In other words there is discrimination of a kind against the representatives whom the African constituency voted into office.”
How is it possible that Stabroek News could make such a claim against Ogunseye?
The editorial, in the above statement, made it quite clear that the parliament is effectively a waste of time and energy for the opposition. Since the opposition is bound and gagged in parliament, then of necessity, it must seek extra parliamentary means of making its voice heard. And this is the fundamental point that Ogunseye is making. Why does Stabroek News (SN) arrive at the claim that Ogunseye is “certainly not concerned” with this essential point?
Democracy has historically been dubbed “mob rule”. It is also called the “tyranny of the majority”. All parliamentary institutions have built in stabilizers to prevent demagogues from inflaming the sentiments of the masses with the intent of seizing power. Guyanese are familiar with the restrictions on the right to vote, restrictions that were effectively removed with the advent of universal adult suffrage.
Guyana’s modern political crisis began with universal adult suffrage. “Burnhamism” was built on the foundation that Blacks as a minority would be subjected to Indian rule, the tyranny of the majority, in the name of democracy. The Burnhamists were capable of holding on to power because of Guyana’s historical development. First and foremost was the entry of African enslaved into Guyana, with Guyana becoming a “society”, while the aboriginal population was effectively sidelined. The abolition of slavery in 1838, and the arrival of Indian indentured servants from that very year set the stage for confrontation in the 1900s. Freed Blacks watched on in concern as the trickle of Indians became a torrent that led to the Indian population becoming the majority by 1911. This Indian majority challenged the “ancestral” rights of the Blacks as the “legitimate” heirs to political power. The independence struggle in the 1950s and 1960s brought all the contradictions to the forefront of Guyana political arena. Race was the foundation stone on which the political struggle was built. This is the inescapable reality of Guyana.
More than half a century after independence, the struggle for some equitable sharing of political power and the wealth of the country remains elusive. This has now become extremely volatile with the discovery of oil. For the first time in our history, we have discarded the “begging bowl” and now possess “Aladdin’s Lamp” in our grasp.
Let there be no doubt it. The desperate attempt to undo the elections of 2020 was premised on the bonanza of the oil wealth. The PNC was shortsighted in its approach to governance, failing to use the democratic space that it was given in the 2015 elections. It made the same mistake that the PPP did in 1992. Party politics and the consolidation of power was the priority. This put the nation at greater risk, leading us to the current crisis.
The WPA, in the aftermath of the 1992 elections, had become the political pawn of the PPP and the PNC. The racial polarization that ensued with the return to democracy recreated the scenario of the 1950-60s. The question of what constitutes a democratic form of government in a race-divided society remains an elusive goal. In the 50-60s, the independence struggle was centred on the struggle for political power and its associated control of the wealth of the nation. This struggle for political power and control of the nation’s wealth manifests itself in the present as control over the billions of oil dollars. The money is here and now, not as a promise of the future. We do not have to “eat less, sleep less, and work more”. We simply have to write a check to access the money in the bank. The PPP government wants a blank check to spend the oil dollars, without accountability. The distorting effects of money in the oil bank poses a much greater threat since there are billions of dollars just sitting there waiting to be spent.
As the SN has noted, the PPP has effectively used the parliament to lock out the PNC from participating in the democratic process and the role of the Speaker, the former TUF leader in this quest is disturbing. This is the definition of an undemocratic and authoritarian regime, bordering on the dictatorial. In so doing, the PPP has effective control of the nation’s oil wealth, so much so that it can be deemed party property. This is the basis of Ogunseye’s argument.
Stabroek News, again to its credit, has pointed out that the PPP is using oil wealth to buy off opposition supporters with handouts, thereby weakening the opposition. And SN interestingly notes that it is a contemptuous understanding of the dignity of Blacks, that is, to think that they can be bought and sold. I will interject “ like chattel”. This is what the PPP thinks of Black Guyanese. Is it the PPP/C’s conclusion that the only “good blacks” are those that either join or support the PPP/C? This is the most fundamental point, the crux of the matter, the question of Black dignity and self-worth.
Blacks do not want or need handouts from an Indian dominated PPP government. The Black race wants equality in the dignified sense of the word. There have been several missteps in the quest for equality along the way, but that does not disqualify them from struggling to achieve it.
The division between the PNC and the WPA may indicate a difference in the means of achieving this goal, but the goal remains the same. The means to achieve a given end is the difference between righteousness and self- righteousness, and this, I will claim, has distinguished the WPA from the PNC. Buddhism has taught us that the journey is the reality, not simply the destination. The destination will always be contingent upon the means that are at hand and in hand, in achieving the desired goal.
Yours sincerely,
Rohit Kanhai
