One of the things that emerged with renewed vigour during the run-up to the recent elections, and continuing since, is the argument that Guyana must address the dilemma of the ethnic divide that is hanging like a millstone around the country’s collective neck. Some of the most listened to voices in the country have been raising this shout. The list includes a number of established pundits (Ruel Johnson, Ian McDonald, Freddie Kissoon, Ralph Ramkarran, Henry Jeffrey, Allan Fenty) but many bloggers and letter writers are making the same point. Significantly, in the early public pronouncement following his election, President Granger referred to both the urgency of the issue and to the difficult resolution road that lay ahead. While I agree that the need is urgent, there is much merit in President Granger’s attendant point of how such positions are difficult to change; throughout history, cultures are very resistant to making important shifts in their centuries-old positions and will even go to war (as the current global behaviours are showing) in the process.
Additionally, however, for any effort to minimize or eliminate ethnic positions themselves in democracies there must be an alternative present for them to turn to as they are being asked to abandon their old stances. In our case, the alternative currently being touted is the notion of Guyana as a place of worth, of successes, of heroes, of singular achievements, but the problem is that, over the years, in colonial times and since, we have been woefully lacking in the processes of establishing that picture. We have done very little to uphold our own, to tell our stories, to celebrate our successes, to emphasize where we are outstanding or attractive. Compared to other countries in the Caribbean I have been, Guyanese know very little about their country and its accomplishments. I was not surprised when a
