Stuart Kaufman, speaking of extreme cases of ethnic violence, suggests that politicians can only stir up ethnic discontent if there is some historical experience to support their positions. According to his symbolic political theory of ethnic violence “people respond to ethnic symbols and mobilize …. only if a widely known and accepted ethnic myth-symbol complex justifies hostility to the other group” (Erin K Jenne “Ethnic Bargaining:
The Paradox of Minority Empower-ment,” 2007). Such ethnic myth-symbols are prevalent in Guyanese society and their existence further supports my contention that in bi-communal societies one does not have to provide specific proof of discrimination to make the case for shared governance. However, I believe that sufficient evidence exists to require that all groups be involved in the decision-making process when national resources are being allocated. The following is a most basic assessment but its advantage is that it is easily authenticated.
I will not deal with the well-known fact of the overwhelming racial disparities between Indo- and Afro-Guyanese that exist in the
