Dear Editor,
There is chatter amongst Republican intellectuals that ‘a realignment of the political landscape has occurred in America.’ This viewpoint is obviously premised more on domestic rather than external considerations. What may have influenced Republican thinkers to arrive at their conclusion was the demographic shifts that occurred in the so-called battle-ground states in America where Latino, Arab, white working class and male African American voters bolted from the Democratic to the Republican camp.
Of great significance too, was the huge chunk of the Guyanese and West Indian diaspora who somersaulted from Harris to Trump.
With the influx of thousands of Latinos and others, the threat of being replaced or displaced at their place of work, or deportation dawned on many bringing with it a frightening reality. The Latinos and others who, in the past, had embraced the Democratic Party ideologically, rather than rejecting Trump because of his hostile messages towards them, surprisingly threw their lot behind him hoping that he would have a change of heart and not move to deport them. According to the November 24, 2024 edition of the New York Times; ‘In the US, in total, there are about 13 million who have legal permanent residency. And there were an estimated 11.3 million undocumented people in 2022, the latest figure available.’ Those were the numbers Trump targeted.
In the Republican strategists view, one of the fundamental underpinnings of their ‘realignment’ claim was that the party’s coalition of social and political forces at the leadership and grassroots levels had dramatically changed.
In effect, unity and struggle of opposites was the force responsible for the realignment of the political landscape in America. We are further told that for any fundamental ‘realignment’ of a country’s political landscape to take place, certain conditions are necessary, two of them being; the opposition camp must be in disarray and large segments of the populace must not want to live the old way. This is certainly true as far as ‘disarray’ in Guyana’s opposition camp is concerned and where ‘large segments’ of the Guyanese electorate are drifting away from the opposition camp.
In the context of America’s body politic, the conditions for the removal of one government for another by peaceful or electoral means had emerged. The results shown that people had no interest to continue living the Democrats’ way for another four years.
Industrial actions by working people with strikes, protests and demonstrations were elevated to political action; that, coupled with protests against Israel’s war on Gaza; showed the peoples’ readiness to vote for change.
In a Guyanese context, indications over the past years, and as recent as the last local government elections suggest, that the PPP/C‘s working-class support can no longer be described as exclusively Indo-Guyanese. African-Guyanese and Amerindian people begun to migrate in a measured way long before the election of the PPP/C to office in 1992. That process intensified during the 1999-2011 period and onwards.
It is an electoral phenomenon that is generally referred to as the ‘cross-over vote.’
The PPP/C implemented policies that ushered in greater benefits to, and held together a more diverse constituency across ethnic and class lines including workers, farmers, fisherfolk, indigenous peoples, the middle strata and business people, thus enabling, as an incumbent, to gain a tremendous advantage notwithstanding a ‘ParlGov FT research’ disclosure showing that; ‘Every governing party facing an election in a developed country this year, lost vote share, the first time this has ever happened.’ Guyana is not a developed country but the application of the research findings to our conditions ought not to be neither over nor underestimated.
The realignment of Guyana’s political landscape was consummated following the split in the PPP in 1955, after which the PPP emerged as a dominant political force in Guyana’s politics (1957-1964) and as an enduring national party. And notwithstanding its declaration in 1992 following its return to government that ‘We don’t want to dominate but we don’t want to be dominated’ the PPP continued to maintain its status as the majority party in the country with only one interruption between 2015-2020.
In the circumstances, the PPP/C should advance a more targeted and pugnacious economic vision that appeals to the better educated young men and women who could be influenced by messages similar to that of Senator Bernie Sanders of Vermont, USA and Jeremy Corbyn, the British politician and Member of Parliament for Islington North in Greater London. Marginal as their messages might have been, there exists a social strata of the Guyanese electorate who are similarly ideologically inclined. Their contribution to an electoral groundswell in favour of the PPP/C should not be underestimated; after all, in a situation where there is a difference in just over 16,000 votes, every vote counts.
Democracy is a system in which parties lose or win elections. And competition is a defining element of democracy. Even in a country where elections are free and fair, the same party sometimes wins for decades, making perpetual losers out of its rivals. In some countries, single-party dominance endure longer than others, Guyana is a case in point.
For some reason, Guyanese seem to enjoy themselves and accept as a given when political parties, engage in lampooning and mocking each other either through cartoons invectives, scorn and ridicule. Ukrainian born Russian novelist Gogol wrote in 1830; ‘Between the appearance and the reality, between the intention and the result, between words and deeds there will always be a gap. And as long as that gap is there, political comedy will never die.’ There will always be differences how political parties view each other and as a consequence, each will have their fair share of mockery and ridicule with much more to come as election season draws near.
Sincerely,
Clement J. Rohee
Former General Secretary, PPP
