When the government created the Ministry of Social Cohesion it placed ethnic conflict, the easing of which is contingent upon the behaviour of its mortal political enemy, the People’s Progressive Party, at the centre of its agenda, and some would say that in our circumstances failure is the default mode of any such enterprise. But realism aside, once this dependence is recognised, the government has to be very careful how it proceeds if there is to be the slightest chance of success.
Social cohesion entails our having ‘a common vision and a sense of belonging for all communities; the diversity of people’s different backgrounds and circumstances are appreciated and positively valued; those from different backgrounds have similar life opportunities; and strong and positive relationships are being developed between people from different backgrounds in the workplace, in schools and within neighbourhoods’ (Cantle, T. (2005) Community Cohesion: A New Framework for Race and Diversity. Palgrave MacMillan).
Social cohesion can be related to race, ethnicity, social class, religion, urban and rural disparities, etc. But I agree with the Guyana Chronicle editorial’s response to the minister of social cohesion’s suggestion that her ministry will be dealing with more than our ethnic problem. “While we welcome this broad conceptualization”, the editor stated, “we feel that special emphasis has to be placed on ethnic cohesion. … While ethnicity is not our only problem, to downplay its salience would be tragic. … The biggest obstacle to a national compact is the endemic ethnic and socio-economic inequality that exists in our country. That has to be tackled head on.”
