Dear Editor,
The Statistical Bureau (SB) has released recently two reports (Compendiums 1 and 2) on the 2012 National Census. Compendium 1 presents the macro-picture with data and analyses of national population trends, size and growth, including local and foreign born, and overseas migration. Because of its poor analytical quality, the discussion of the latter should have been omitted from Compendium 1. Compendium 2 drills down to region and ethnicity. It contains data and analyses of the ethnic composition and distribution of the country’s population for 1980, 1991, 2002 and 2012; changes in the age structure; median age of the population; age dependency ratio or the number of dependents on the working population (15-64 years); sex structure by age group; and religious composition of the population. I await eagerly the release of Compendium 3. While I commend the SB for its massive work on Compendiums 1 and 2, these reports, in terms of analytical quality, are not as good as the report on the 2002 Census. As I understand it, the latter report was prepared with the support of a consultant funded by the United Nations Development Programme.
I have two grouses. First, Compendium 2 has two figures for the Indian population in 2012: 297,493 (Figure 2.1, Table 2.1 and elsewhere), and 291,451 (Appendix B.2.1, p. 32). Since the former figure is used throughout the report, it appears that 6,042 Indians are missing or not counted by the 2012 census. Second, I am mystified by the way the SB calculates growth rate. The growth of a variable, such as GDP, is expressed as a percentage. For example, real GDP (at 2006 prices) was $373,576 million in 2014 and $384,805 in 2015. GDP was $11,229 million larger in 2015. To calculate the growth rate of GDP in 2015, this difference is divided by GDP in 2014 and the result multiplied by 100 so that growth is expressed in percentage terms. This procedure yields a real GDP growth rate of 3.0 per cent in 2015, which is what the Bank of Guyana has in its Annual Report for 2015 (p 10).
Apparently, the SB does not use the above method. Take Table 2.2, page 4, of Compendium 2. For each ethnic group there are columns with these headings: Number Changed, Percent Changed, and National Growth Rate/100. “Percent Change” is in fact the growth rate, but the uninitiated will not know this. The column “National Growth rate/100” is calculated by dividing “Percent Change” by 100, which makes no sense. To illustrate, take the figures for the African population. It fell from 227,062 in 2002 to 218,483 in 2012. The decline of 8,579 computes to a contraction of 3.78 per cent, which is what the “Percent Changed” column shows. On the other hand, “National Growth Rate/100” has a figure of -0.38; I have no idea what this figure refers to or how it should be interpreted. Other tables adopt this same mystifying procedure. For a moment, I thought the latter figure (-0.38) refers to the contribution of this ethnic group to overall population growth but this cannot be the case. The most illuminating way to behold the mystery is to focus on the figure (-0.06) for “Total” (leftmost column, last row), which presumably refers to population growth from 2002 to 2012. But this presumption is incorrect: the country’s population fell by 0.57 per cent, which, when divided by 100, = -0.06. Perhaps the SB may wish to clarify.
In 1960, 55.52 per cent of Guyana’s population was under 20 years of age; this figure fell to 44.82 per cent in 2002, and to 41.33 per cent in 2012. The population component aged 20-59 increased from 39.14 per cent to 48.94 per cent to 50.56 percent; that of the age group 60 to 80 and above, from 5.34 per cent to 6.24 per cent to 8.01 per cent. The share of people 75 and over almost doubled between 1960 and 2012. The median age of the population in 2012 was 25.1 years. The SB refers to the aging phenomenon as the “gradual maturing” of the population (page 20). A greying population is inevitable, but it has serious fiscal implications: the growing number of dependents (young and elderly people) upon the working-age population, escalating cost of health care (it is more difficult and expensive to treat chronic non-communicable diseases which afflict the elderly more than the young), rising burden of social security and housing, access to transportation facilities, and changes to other infrastructure to accommodate an elderly population. An aging population can thus be a drag on growth, but with wise policies this need not be the case.
The rest of this essay is devoted to the oncoming rearrangement of the country’s demographic arithmetic consequent upon the changing relative importance of ethnic groups. Two of the four major ethnic groups (Indian and African) contracted between 1980 and 2012, while the other two (Mixed and Amerindians) grew. During these thirty-two, the Indian population fell from 394,417 to 297,493 or by almost 100,000 persons. This contraction of almost 25 per cent shifted the relative weight of Indians from 51.93 per cent to 39.83 per cent. For Africans, the decline was from 234,094 to 218,483, a loss of almost 16,000 persons or decrease of 6.67 per cent. The mild contraction only marginally changed the African population share: from 30.82 percent to 29.25 percent. On the other hand, the Amerindian population almost doubled, rising from 40,343 to 78,492. Proportionally, they account for 10.51 per cent of the country’s population in 2012 compared to 5.31 three decades ago.
The most dramatic changes come from people of mixed racial background, changes that will alter radically the country’s ethnic composition. The number of “Mixed” persons increased from 84,764 to 148,532, which represents a growth of 75.23 per cent. The precipitous rise boosted this group’s population share from 11.16 per cent to 19.88 per cent. The ‘great mixed leap’ forward is the only redeeming feature of Guyana’s dismal demographic landscape, but it comes with serious cultural, economic and political implications. Whether racial bitterness and spite will continue post 2030 is unknown; if it does, its centre will have shifted from Indians and Africans to people of mixed origin. The duopoly of ethnicity will be broken and replaced by a monopoly. Instead of Africans and Indians tearing each other apart, people of mixed ethnic background could be the ethnic perpetrators. If the mixed population continues to grow at 2.35 per cent, the Indian at -0.77 per cent and the African at -0.21 per cent annually, as all three did from 1980-2012, people of mixed origin will outnumber Indians by 2035 and Blacks by 2028. On the other hand, if the mixed population continues to grow at 1.81 per cent, the Indian at -0.88 per cent, and African at -0.38 annually, as they did from 2002 to 2012, the ‘mixed overtake’ will happen later. Mixed people will outnumber Indians by 2039 and Africans by 2030. The drastic reconfiguration of the coming demographic arithmetic will change political preferences and orientation. As has been the case historically, race underpinned Guyana’s political landscape. Twenty years hence, this will still be the case with the crucial difference that people of mixed people will displace Indians and Africans from the top position. Mixed people will be calling the political shots. Freed from the dependence upon Africans, they might even form their own political party, join with Africans on their own terms or with Indians. In any case, mixed people will be the dominant ethnic group while Indians and African will get smaller, if present trends persist.
If the Amerindian population grows annually at 2.95 per cent as it did from 1980-2012, it will be larger than the Indian population by 2050 and the Black population by 2045. If it increases at the rate it did from 2002-2012 (1.43 per cent), it will overtake the Indian and African population by 2070. Regardless of the scenario, Indians will become the smallest major ethnic group in Guyana in the next 60 years or so. This will reverse their dominance that began around the early 1890s.
The ethnic rivalry between Africans and Indians that began about 170 years ago will probably fade into insignificance by 2080. This does not necessarily mean that factious politics and racial bigotry will be confined to the dustbin, but hopefully our great grandchildren will inherit a more peaceful, prosperous and equitable Guyana.
Yours faithfully,
Ramesh Gampat
