A new Guyana is in the making. And a struggle is underway for the soul of the new Guyana; this struggle may be seen in the Guyanese media. The debate is a necessary one. Unfortunately, the Government and its spokespersons are thin-skinned and simultaneously defensive/aggressive. This is unnecessary and unfortunate. The Government has a case to make, and can make it better. And the Opposition is simultaneously sulking and threatening. One doesn’t really know what their policy propositions are. In the midst of all of this, the soul of the new Guyana is struggling to be born.
The first struggle is an environmental one. All three of the leading parties have made the choice to exploit Guyana’s newly-discovered energy resources. There is criticism of this within the society. But both this government and its predecessor have considered the poverty levels of Guyanese and come to the conclusion that it is justified, in the circumstances, to use the receipts from the new energy resources to build up infrastructure for development with a view to improving the life-chances of Guyanese. It is a point of view deserving to be heard.
It is legitimate, however, for environmental civil society organizations to canvass views on how the environment might be protected still, even in light of the decision to exploit the new energy resources. A thoughtful government would have encouraged this debate, and would have participated in it in good faith. Unfortunately, the Government is biting in its criticism of environmental organizations. The Government can do better on this.
The second struggle is for the territorial integrity of Guyana in the face of naked aggression from Venezuela. Venezuela threatens to seize three-quarters of Guyana’s national territory. All three of the leading parties have done what they could to defend Guyana’s territorial integrity. And civil society is beginning to organize itself to make its voice heard against Venezuela’s aggression.
Unfortunately, both Government and the populace are lacking the means to physically defend the country’s territorial integrity should Venezuela choose to use force, and this is cause for anguish on the part of the Government, the Opposition, and the populace. There is clear grief in the country on this issue. In a situation such as this, a third-party mediator might have interceded to help promote a peaceful resolution. This has unfortunately not happened so far. It will be needed, even if the International Court of Justice holds in favour of Guyana.
The third struggle in Guyana is one that concerns the character and essence of the Guyanese nation. An experienced follower of Guyanese politics once pertinently said that two peoples are precariously coexisting in one space in Guyana: African and Indian. He probably did not include the Indigenous people and people of mixed descent because they are not confrontational.
With elections due later in 2025, tension is visibly on the rise. The opposition is calling for changes in some of the ground rules for elections and a declared Presidential candidate of one of the smaller parties has been combative in his pronouncements, calling for mass action, among other things. Historically, mass action invariably leads to violence in Guyana. The challenges of nation-building in Guyana have been, and remain, formidable. It is necessary to recognize this.
During the Christmas week of 2002, at the request of then UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan, I undertook a mission as a special envoy to Ivory Coast to discuss with Ivorian leaders how the war and the gross violations of human rights then afflicting the country might be attenuated. After meeting with the President of the country and his Ministers, I flew from the capital, Abidjan, to the city of Yamassoukro and from Yamassoukro I went by road over several hours to Boake, the northern city, where the rebel leadership was based. The road to Boake was lined with armed soldiers of the North, throughout.
The rebel leader was a young man, hardly thirty years old, and when I entered his meeting room he immediately exclaimed:”Ici, nous luttons pour le respect” – “Here, we are fighting for respect”. The people in the north of the country, who were farmers mainly, thought that the city-dwellers in the capital looked down upon them, disrespected them. They were all Africans, of different tribes. But this issue of respect, or lack thereof, was at the heart of the conflict. I reported to the Secretary-General and to the UN Security Council on my mission and recommended that measures be taken to improve mutual respect between the two sides. My written report is available as an official document of the United Nations.
I believe that this issue of respect, or the perceived lack thereof – rightly or wrongly – is at the heart of the Guyanese political predicament and needs to be addressed if the country is to go forward together. At the individual level there is certainly mutual respect to be found in inter-personal relations. But, at the group level, perceptions of lack of respect may be detected within all four of the major population groups in the country, Africans, Indians, Indigenous, and Persons of mixed origins.
I have seen it written that Guyana is now a nation of ‘minorities’ because no ethnic group now has a clear majority in numbers. I do not believe that the term ‘minorities’ is the apt one. International law has some different norms for dealing with minorities and with peoples. The correct term is ‘people’. There is an African people, an Indian People, an Indigenous People, and what I would term a People of Mixed Descent. I acknowledge the presence within the Guyanese population of persons of Chinese and Portuguese origins who are deserving of protection of their cultures. But whether their numbers are sufficient to amount to a people each is open to discussion.
Each group of the Guyanese people is entitled to expect respect for its culture and aspirations. And we must be attentive to the perceptions of each group as to whether it thinks that it is being accorded respect in law and in reality. Let it be clear that I am not saying that any of the three main political parties, the AFC, PNC or PPP, taking them alphabetically, seeks to disrespect any of the population groups. But intentions and perceptions are different things.
What matters is whether any of the population groups feels that it is being shown disrespect, intentionally or unintentionally. I venture to say that, whichever government has been in power, perceptions of disrespect could be found within three of the population groups, Indigenous, African, and Indian.
Let us take the oldest people first. Indigenous representatives have continued to protest that they are not being treated in accordance with the international standards on the rights of indigenous peoples. Why is it that successive governments have not sought to entrench the international norms for the protection of indigenous peoples in the laws of Guyana? Should we not have a forum within Guyana where peoples of Indigenous descent can ventilate their grievances, aspirations and demands?
Next to the Indigenous people, Africans are the oldest inhabitants of Guyana. As slaves, and after the abolition of slavery, they worked hard to build up the infrastructure of Guyana: roads, drainage, agriculture. They have aspirations and grievances, including developmental aspirations, that they are pursuing within the framework of the UN Decade for Peoples of African Descent. Should we not have arrangements within Guyana where peoples of African descent can air their aspirations, grievances, and demands?
And then there are people of Indian descent. They, too, have issues to be considered, including developmental aspirations. Prominent among their concerns is that they live in fear of violence, especially before or in the aftermath of elections. They are traumatized by the ethnic cleansing of Indians that took place in Wismar in 1964, and by the fact the day of the massacre, 26 May, was chosen as Guyana’s Independence Day – and continues to be commemorated as such. One reads of Indian fears in the media as the 2025 election approaches. Should there not be arrangements within Guyana where peoples of Indian descent can air their grievances, aspirations and demands?
And as we consider the aspirations and grievances of Africans, Indians, and Indigenous people, must we not similarly provide arrangements where people of Mixed descent, of Chinese descent, and of Portuguese descent can air their aspirations, grievances and demands?
It is important for future good governance in Guyana, whichever party is in power, that the country find ways of enhancing perceptions of respect on the part of all the population groupings. As is well known, the Human Rights Commission envisaged in the Constitution has never been established, and the Ethnic relations and Indigenous commissions have thus far not inspired enough confidence among the populace.
Let us mention at this point that there are two approaches to politics at issue here: the competitive/transactional approach and the competitive/transactional-cum-consensual approach. In the competitive/transactional approach, the political parties vie for support across the races and, whoever wins takes power. That is clearly at play in the forthcoming 2025 elections. In the competitive/transactional-cum-consensual approach one seeks to build in consensual elements into competitive politics. This has so far not been tried in Guyana. It can work, with goodwill on all sides – which is a big assumption.
The fourth struggle in Guyana is for a modernized national vision. Respect in a country can be fostered by an updated and shared national vision. On this point, President Irfaan Ali has, from the outset of his Presidency, been preaching the message of ‘One Guyana’, encapsulating the Constitution’s vision of one nation, one people, one destiny. There have been some political comments on this, but we shall set those aside for the moment.
The Constitution has some laudable provisions with elements of a national vision, but they are somewhat dispersed and need to be brought together in a consolidated vision statement. A modernized vision statement could build on constitutional and related provisions such as the following:
Guyana is the land of the free
We are one nation, one people, with one destiny
We are one land of six peoples, united and free
May God Protect Our Peoples
We are all sons of one mother, Guyana the free
We pledge to honour always the flag of Guyana and to be loyal to our country, to be obedient to the laws of Guyana, to love our fellow citizens, and to dedicate our energies towards the happiness and prosperity of Guyana
Guyana is an indivisible, secular, democratic sovereign State
We are committed to protecting our natural environment
The Constitution is the supreme law of Guyana
Sovereignty belongs to the people
The principal objective of the political system of the State is to establish an inclusionary democracy
The goal of economic development includes the greatest possible satisfaction of the people’s growing material, cultural and intellectual requirements
Land is for the tiller and must go to the tiller
We are pledged to develop a viable economy and a harmonious community based on democratic values, social justice, fundamental human rights and the rule of law
We value the special place in our nation of the Indigenous Peoples.
Every citizen has the right to own personal property which includes such assets as dwelling houses and the land on which they stand, farmsteads, tools and equipment, motor vehicles and bank accounts.
Every young person has the right to social, cultural and vocational development.
Women and men have equal rights and the same legal status
In the interests of the present and future generations, the State will protect and make rational use of its land, mineral and water resources, as well as its fauna and flora, and will take appropriate measures to conserve and improve the environment.
Every person in Guyana is entitled to the basic right to a happy, creative and productive life, free from hunger, disease, ignorance and want.
No law shall make any provision that is discriminatory either of itself or in its effect. No person shall be treated in a discriminatory manner
It is the duty of the State to protect the just rights and interests of citizens resident abroad.
The fifth struggle in Guyana is for efficient and fair governance and for equity and justice. It is widely recognized that, even making an allowance for good intentions, governments, of whatever party/parties, have not been notably efficient. And there is much evidence also of supporters of governing party/parties of the day profiting from their connections. Civil society organizations regularly point out instances of such occurrences, as they likewise point out human rights issues in need of attention. Alas, the reaction of governments, like those of the current incumbent, can be pungent.
I have argued earlier in these pages that the designation of a Minister of Human Rights within the government might help the country on this front. Governments perceive critical comments on human rights issues coming from civil society as attacks on them and respond harshly. We have seen this recently, again. A Minister of Human Rights within the Government could help. As someone who spent decades of service in the United Nations dealing with human rights issues, including during the time when I performed the functions of UN High Commissioner of Human Rights, I have seen Ministers of Human Rights in Brazil and Indonesia, for example, help sensitize their governments to human rights issues. They can be positive forces for good in the society. I believe that, with its ethnic structure, a Minister of Human Rights within government can help take the nation forward in great harmony and justice.
The sixth struggle in Guyana is for civilized debate. One advances views to foster discussion of what might be of help in knitting the new Guyanese nation in making. One respects different views. But they can be proffered respectfully, and without insults – as we see often, particularly in the government-run newspaper. A philosopher rightfully observed: “If you try to give me your nastiness, and I refuse to accept it, then to whom does the nastiness belong?”
The Constitution of Guyana proclaims that “It is the duty of the State to protect the just rights and interests of citizens resident abroad.” The Constitution of Guyana thus respects the patriotism of Guyanese wherever they are. Their counsel and advice can be of great value and should be received as such. The government-run newspaper would do well to remember this.
The new Guyana in the making will need careful nurturing and wise leadership. This is the spirit in which this piece is offered: “To Guyana, with Love”.
