Dear Editor,
Most likely, the ministerial portfolio that most puzzled the public at the time of its announcement was that of Social Cohesion. While few Guyanese doubted the need for cohesion in our diverse society, the idea to create a separate portfolio seemed strange. After all, wasn’t social cohesion the responsibility and concern of every ministry, whether of agriculture, communities, or public security?
Many of us by now have embraced the idea, as the work under the portfolio has unfolded and as we have maybe learnt that several other countries (such as France) have such ministries. In recognition of the importance of this portfolio, I would like to make a few suggestions on its mission.
Firstly, social cohesion has to be understood in all its dimensions. Numerous versions exist as to what these ought to be, but the most implementable, in my view, is to unpack and measure cohesion by (i) whether people feel that they belong (or feel isolated—a dimension that takes critical proportions in societies with large migrant populations); (ii) whether people can participate in decisions that affect them (or are sidelined); (iii) whether people see their government and other public institutions as legitimate (or illegitimate); (iv) whether all groups have fair access to economic resources and opportunities (or are and feel deprived); and (v) whether people feel that their distinctive cultures and identities are recognized (or rejected). In Guyana, these dimensions run mostly along the lines of race and politics, but also along class and geography (far-flung and border regions versus coastal regions).
These aspects of social cohesion will have different levels of seriousness over time. And there ought to be a public debate (ideally, with research data) on which ones we have made good progress (acceptance of our diverse cultures?) and on which ones we have not (fair access to economic opportunities?). The debate should also focus on how robust or fragile is our cohesion (as measured by the five factors above) in times of crises, such as during elections and with the imminent closure of the Wales sugar estate.
The second matter I wish to highlight concerns the measurement of social cohesion using research data. Simply put, work under the social cohesion portfolio would be seen as nebulous and cosmetic without a committed effort to collect and use social data. Of all the government portfolios, social cohesion stands alone as the one without ready indicators of real performance. How does one measure degrees or feelings of social acceptance, tolerance, and togetherness? The solution, of course, lies in the creation of a well-trained and financed survey centre to collect and interpret datasets on a range of special social indicators. Guyanese should, for example, be polled on their level of trust of the government, their experience with racial discrimination, their chances for economic advancement (especially among youths), and their views on races other than their own. These surveys measure progress, identify problems and drive solutions. On this, the Social Cohesion sub-ministry should engage the University of Guyana as a matter of priority.
Lastly, it is worth restating that every ministry and government department plays a role in social cohesion. Perhaps, every major government policy or decision should be accompanied by a social cohesion impact statement. Wales seems to be a good place to start.
Yours faithfully,
Sherwood Lowe
