Dear Editor,
When some seven months ago President David Granger announced the establishment of the Ministry of Social Cohesion (MOSC), many wondered aloud what exactly the purpose of such a ministry was. However, they would have instinctively recognized that the President wanted a decisive approach towards closing the wounds brought about by decades of socio-political and ethnocentric rivalry in our country.
During the seven months that have elapsed, not much information has been made publicly available on the mandate, aims and objectives of the MOSC, or what the specific issues it wants to tackle are, and how it plans to accomplish its goals. Maybe these will be forthcoming as the year 2016 unfolds. In the interim, the ministry has come in for a lot of political bashing, not least from the political opposition which has called for its scrapping.
But what exactly is ‘social cohesion’? It is defined as “the willingness of members of a society to cooperate with each other, in order to survive and prosper”. Based on this definition, I would want to think that the kinds of social problems we have in Guyana, that make “social cohesiveness” so far elusive, are a little more basic, for want of a better word.
Apart from the deeply entrenched racial/ethnic insecurities we have, there are many other things about daily life that make Guyana a tense society. The ethnic problems we have, characterized by distrust, suspicion, and generally guarded interaction, are now old issues that are reinforced daily by the actions of many at the grass roots level. But as our society becomes a little more tolerant, open ethnic animosity is subsiding, giving way to other forms in which the sentiments of racial entitlements and hegemony are displayed.
Our social problems seem to grow in complexity as the years go by. A new and potentially bigger problem has risen to the surface, that of intra-racial class struggles ‒ the kind of conflicts between the ‘haves’ and ‘have nots’ of our society. They were there for quite some time now, but are growing in intensity. Violent criminality by the poor and ostensibly oppressed is one way this conflict is demonstrated. Inequitable access to opportunities, resources and social justice; exclusion from participation in developmental processes; and limited access to judicial recourse are some of the other forms in which this kind of struggle is revealed.
Now, the President also established a Ministry of Governance, supposedly to address the issue of bringing about equitable public administration. What has supported the perpetuation and growth of inter-ethnic rivalry and class struggles is the seeming lack of effective, purposeful, equitable and transparent governance – the kind of governmental approach that is unequivocal in its reach to the different ethnic groups and social classes in our society. There are feelings of helplessness, apathy and distrust for government which go back a long way.
For example, the relationship between the disciplined forces and the civilian population also gives rise to feelings of insecurity. Added to the perception of inequities in governmental administrations are the perceived impacts of political allegiance. Those who are perceived, and those who claim to have ‘contacts’ and ‘lines’ with officials are often seen as people to steer clear of, and even to be feared. The way reports of corruption and harassment are handled, and the rise of ‘sacred cows’ also reinforce the feelings of helplessness among the poor and socially disadvantaged.
In government ministries, departments, agencies and institutions, and in state-owned companies, discrimination and expressions of ethnic support are all still very evident. Even in the private sector, such things occur, though on a subdued scale. Cliquism, the rise of in-groups and relegation of others to out-groups and the tendency to gang-up are all very common occurrences, which go all the way back up to how public and corporate governance are played out at the ground level.
I have always believed that government must set the standard and pace for obtaining social justice and addressing issues of socio-economic inequities. Above, I have established the nexus between social inequalities, and public and corporate governance. In so doing, I have also established the flip side of the coin, that is, the linkage between good governance and social cohesion. Simply put, good, equitable and transparent governance begets social cohesion.
The first step for this coalition government in going in this direction, is to unequivocally demonstrate that it is a government for all, and not just some people. It must do everything in its power to dispel the belief that some are more equal and have more rights than others. It must demonstrate its willingness to heed the concerns and cries of all sections of society, and to take the desired actions. It cannot afford to alienate anyone. It must be willing to see itself as a partner and leader of the people, and not collectively as a ruler. We do not want to be ruled, we want to be fairly governed. We got rid of rulers 50 years ago.
I believe the Ministries of Governance and Social Cohesion would have a far-reaching, positive impact on our society, if they were merged. Separately, they cannot achieve much. Call the merger, the Ministry of Public Governance and Social Cohesion. Let it become the architect and watchdog for equitable and inclusive governance.
Foremost among the merged ministry’s mandate should be the energizing of civil society, and to demonstrate inclusive governance by reaching out to actors in our fledgling civil society movement. Its principal partners for effecting good governance should be organizations that can help with policy development and implementation, ie, social partners like TIGI, GHRA, the business community, religious groups, trade unions, etc. These, I am certain, have goodwill for the administration, and are willing to help.
Yours faithfully,
Khemraj Tulsie
