Dear Editor,
In 1991 a Washington Post reporter who had just returned to the US from Guyana told me that the Western ambassadors in Georgetown told him: “You cannot have democracy in a land where every last man votes race.” Who were these Western ambassadors? And, what have they done in the last 18 years to pressure Guyana’s ethnic parties to end their stultifying ethnic electoral practices?
In Sunday Stabroek (‘Politicised-racial divide hinders development,’ June 27) Ambassador Wheeler defines the problem of a lack of genuine democracy as a “politicised racial-divide.” His predecessor in 1991 said: “You cannot have democracy.” Period. Now 19 years later nothing has changed.
We still have ethnic parties: Indian PPP and African PNC are as purely ethnic today as they were in 1991. A majority of their votes come from a single ethnic group. And, each practises ethnic politics exactly as it did in 1991. Both appear only to be prepared to have a leader from a particular ethnic group.
The practice of such gross, ethnic politics can never be considered democracy. Electors vote all right, but is this the fulfilment and true meaning of democracy? The ethnic arithmetic is on the side of the Indian PPP. And, the PPP will pull every trick from its playbook to ensure that Indians will vote race. They will nominate another Indian to head the party, sending a clear and unmistakable message to Indians.
It is time for the liberal democracies (America, Britain, Canada) and their ambassadors to gently nudge the PPP and PNC to end their ethnic-racial electoral politics, and if this doesn’t work, cut off aid to Guyana; report the matter to the United Nations; send a thousand letters asking the Norwegians not to conclude their purchase of carbon credits from Guyana.
In this historical “politicized racial-divide” problem, as Wheeler defines it, there is plenty of blame to go around.
The Indian leader of the PPP finds it all too easy to manipulate the Indian masses, thanks to the bitter legacy of the 28-year-old racial and tyrannical rule of the African-group. (“Indians have a mortal fear of Africans getting back into power,” one Indian politician told me.)
And, the PNC never understood their own electoral dilemma, even after 18 years out of power. A study of the historical voting habits and the ethnic arithmetic will easily reveal to them that they must reinvent their party to make it look genuinely multiracial and design a platform to appeal to the Indian masses; racial parity for Indians in the police and army; accepting human resource and financial help from the ABC countries to deal with the out-of-control crime situation, and ending corrupt dealings in relation to government contracts.
And, above all they should set up a truth and reconciliation commission to investigate abuses during the years 1964-1992. If the PNC will do nothing to reinvent itself, then it is contesting elections only for academic reasons.
A deliberate failure of the PNC to reform itself makes it all too easy for another Indian leader to ride the racial-divide politics into the presidential residence.
One small reform measure: get the PPP and PNC to end their ethnic image by electing a leader from outside their ethnic bases, and a whole new political dynamic will evolve. The nation will be one step closer to freeing itself from the racial-voting prison it has endured over the last 60 years. A new, genuine, multiracial democracy will emerge.
In a nation with such a unique racial breakdown as Guyana, the victorious party must not only get 51 per cent of the votes, but that tally must comprise at least 15-20 per cent cross-racial support.
The PPP’s electoral victories in the last 18 years have included little African support (Africans make up 30 per cent of the population). Hence the reason why the PPP is seen as an Indian government voted in by Indians only and governs in the interest of Indians only. Even if the latter part is not true, a deeply held perception in politics is reality.
David Hinds, Tacuma Ogunseye, Eric Phillips and company’s, call for power-sharing will institutionalize ethnic voting.
Their advocacy is misguided, and if accepted will make it impossible to ever introduce genuine democracy in Guyana. Joey Jagan calls for big tent politics – a united front of all opposition forces. Sasenarine Singh calls for big tent and suggests Joe Singh as the presidential candidate. How does this strategy inspire Africans and Indians not to vote race and to vote on issues? How this helps to peel off a sufficient percentage of the Indian vote from its bloc is not entirely clear or convincing.
The vital keys to unlock the Guyanese people from their racial-voting prison are held by the PPP and PNC, not by any big tent grouping. And, the ABC countries, European Community, Norway and United Nations are the ones with leverage over this tiny nation of 700,000 people, which if exerted could demolish the ethnic PPP and PNC overnight.
Guyanese activists themselves can act now to petition the powers for help. Do nothing, and the status quo remains unchanged, and you get the government you deserve.
Yours faithfully,
Mike Persaud
(New York)
