Dear Editor,
A news item in your newspaper (May 31st, `US in talks on $300M democracy project here’) reported a big meeting between APNU’s leaders and U.S. Ambassador Brent Hardt and a USAID team.
A press release from APNU stated that the US government will spend $300 million on various so-called democracy projects. The release ended with this statement: “… the new project could make a valuable contribution for advancing the evolution of a truly democratic culture in Guyana”.
Really? What is the problem with our democratic culture? Is it not excessively high levels of ethnic voting for ethnic parties? And, if there is a majority ethnic group, wouldn’t that group’s ethnic party always win? And, the out-of-power group will always remain seething and unsatisfied? This has been our political culture over the last 60 years.
So how does Ambassador Hardt’s so-called democracy project hope to supplant this entrenched culture of ethnic voting with an alternative and help Guyana evolve into a truly democratic culture? The release stated that the funds will be spent on “strengthening the National Assembly; provide legislative drafting assistance for the Opposition; ensure the effective functioning of the Opposition Leader’s office”, etc. The average Guyanese citizens will ask: How do these things help to bring an end to excessively high levels of ethnic voting and an end to the existence of ethnic parties?
The Ambassador’s central idea and programme, as outlined in the press release, will do absolutely nothing about changing the political culture of ethnic voting for ethnic parties, but could certainly do one thing– replace the Indian government by an Afro-ethnic one. This means no substantive changes to the backward ethnic politics we practice and no evolution to a genuine multiracial democracy.
The Ambassador must be cognizant of the essential elements of Guyana’s politics over the last 60 years. First, we had two ethnic parties led by Founder-leaders-for-life who always would appoint a deputy from the alternative ethnic group; second, after they both died, the central committees of both parties made sure their dead leaders were succeeded by another of the same ethnicity so as to preserve the pure ethnic image of the party. This effectively thwarts cross-racial voting, and as it turns out it is the death-knell of genuine democracy.
Guyana could not possibly evolve into a genuine multiracial democracy if ethnic parties continue to exist. PNC has continued to be an African party. There has been absolutely no change in the way the party is perceived since the death of its ethnic leader 25 years ago.
What should Ambassador Hardt’s priority be if the U.S. government wants to change the ethnic politics of Guyana, and help it evolve into a genuine democracy, a democracy where the baton of power changes every two or three election cycles, as is the standard in all true functioning democracies? Develop a stick and carrot approach to force both ethnic parties to transform themselves into genuine multiracial parties. Pure ethnic parties must not be allowed to exist. End their window-dressing policies. Placing an Indian guy, Rupert Roopnaraine as deputy of APNU or an African guy, Sam Hinds as deputy of the Indian-party government fools no one in Guyana. Progressive Guyanese citizens have long caught on to this sinister and backward practice – and are ready to move forward and rise above ethnic politics, save and except for the ethnic parties which continue to frighten them into voting racially/ethnically.
Ambassador Hardt’s proposed expenditure of $300 million is a whole lot of money thrown on duck’s back, and would achieve nothing in terms of helping Guyana evolve into a genuine multiracial democracy.
Yours faithfully,
Mike Persaud
