Dear Editor,
I write with reference to Dr Henry Jeffrey’s column, ‘Guyana: bi-communalism in transition’ (SN, Aug 20). Dr Jeffrey says: “… Guyana is a bi-communal society that is very difficult to manage because the political allegiances of two large ethnic groups foster exclusion and keep
governments in office for long periods of time.” He then proposes the long and much debated power-sharing solution where “all major ethnic groups are at the executive decision-making table to articulate and protect their interests.”
In my opinion this is the most important of all the national issues that requires a solution. Burgeoning crime rates, almost daily road deaths, corruption, deforestation due to industrial scale logging, paying a living wage, fixing the education system, and all the rest are secondary. If history teaches us anything it is that the current state of governance (perception of being governed by a particular ethnic group) cannot endure for many more years. Guyana’s political class needs to urgently start planning and forging a new system, one in which both Africans and Indians can feel the system works for both of them.
Another name for what Dr Jeffrey is proposing is consociationalism. Sometimes it is called consociational democracy, other times apanjhat consociationalism. This is the system of governance currently employed in Suriname. Pundits feel this system is necessary whenever people in diverse societies do politics by race – organize by race (ethnic parties) and vote race at exceedingly high rates. Both Guyana and Suriname, because of its diversity and culture of ethnic voting would presume to be ideally suited for consociationalism.
Prof Edward Dew, easily a world authority on consociationalism (author of The Trouble in Suriname 1975-1993; The Difficult Flowering of Suriname) says: “Although consociational power-sharing is not an easy construction, I would argue that Suriname has had, and must have, this form of government.”
Contrasting Suriname with Guyana, Prof Dew says, “Guyana’s society is somewhat more simple than [Suriname’s]. Unless one or both of Guyana’s dominant parties can thoroughly diversify internally, leaving their ethnic identity behind, ethnic polarization will continue.”
In Suriname there are four groups that organize by race – Hindustanees (Indians), Creoles (Africans), Javanese, Bush Negroes. There is a party for each group. Their voting pattern is not much different from Guyana’s – perhaps 95 per cent strong for their group. Unlike Guyana, there are several splinter parties – splinters from the Hindustanee, Creoles and Javanese – for most of their self-governing history (starting about 1948). Their consociational or power-sharing arrangement is usually worked out before the elections. From about 1958-1973, Hindustanees and Creoles did power-sharing and as Prof Dew says, “it kept the peace.” The Cabinet positions were shared, the prime ministership was held by the Creole party. Then something interesting happened just before 1973: “outbidding” for the spoils by the two major groups caused the arrangement to fall apart. Splinters from both Hindustanees and Creoles accused the large parent group of “selling out” – not bringing home enough bacon for their group. The vacuum created provided a young military Sports Instructor named Desi Bouterse with the opportunity to pull off a coup d’état.
After a long period of troubled rule by the military that involved a lot of violence and killings, consociational democracy eventually returned due largely to the charisma of Bouterse that saw him back in power.
What are the chances of Suriname’s system of consociational or apanjhat democracy being adopted in Guyana? Can we imagine the PPP and PNC entering a power-sharing arrangement to share the presidency and Cabinet? I must honestly say I don’t see it ever happening. Suriname has had many more groups, none coming close to 51 per cent; Guyana has only two major groups, and one of them, Indians, until recently had always won the election with a clear 51 per cent majority. The Indian group has been in power for the last 22 years, gotten drunk on power and will never agree to power-sharing. Their campaign strategy for the upcoming election is written on every wall, in every pro-PPP bloggers’ post: they intend to get back the six per cent vote they lost at the last election by hook or crook. And, their campaign war chest is overflowing with the dollars to do it.
Drs Jeffrey and David Hinds and all the other proponents from the consociational or power-sharing school of thought should just forget about the idea. We should concentrate on pressuring the Indian group, the PPP and the African group, the PNC to “thoroughly diversify internally” so as to make their parties be perceived as genuinely multi-racial. (They should end the practice of ‘window-dressing’ which is perceived by the whole population as fake.) In this way it would be easier for each party to attract cross-racial support. You cannot have genuine democracy without a sizeable pool of swing or issues voters. This is the key to make democracy work. Swing voters would hold the balance of power. They would vote, say, party A in this coming election; if Party A doesn’t perform well for whatever reason, this group of swing voters comprising both Africans and Indians (to simplify) would vote them out at the next election. In this way we would have regular turnovers in power, and with that would come accountability in governance.
Dr Jeffrey says his next column will be on constitutional reform. The only immediate reform we need is: (1) Coalitions of parties should be permissible after the elections; and (2) a presidency cannot go to a party that does not win the majority (51 per cent) and/or does not command the
majority in the parliament. But even this discussion is an exercise in futility as there is no chance the ruling party would ever agree to any reform that would put its hold on power at risk. The only chance for constitutional reform would be through people’s power.
Yours faithfully,
Mike Persaud
