Dear Editor,
Henry Jeffrey (‘Any social impact assessment would have to facilitate our becoming a more consensually driven society’ in SN June 3) and I are in the same playground in advocating for a shared governance constitution in Guyana. His approach to social cohesion however continues to do a disservice in four ways: (i) it adopts a binary system: social cohesion either can exist (with constitutional reform) or cannot (under the present political arrangements). His approach is therefore uninterested in degrees and increments; (ii) it adopts a one-dimensional framework: all social cohesion is about race relations. It therefore wrongly undervalues the social, economic, and geographic aspects of cohesion; (iii) it extends this one-dimensionality by ignoring the other aspects of social cohesion (as per Bernard), such as acceptance of religious diversity, and focuses only on the legitimacy of the government, admittedly a major component; and (iv) it rejects good governance as a necessary, if insufficient, condition, despite his several articles in SN advising the governing coalition of its missteps along that path.
In light of the PPP’s continued and instinctive rejection of shared governance, Dr Jeffrey’s approach would see us hanging up our social cohesion and good governance gloves probably forever. But I know he cannot be saying that, for he knows we can make meaningful improvements while we wait on the political ideal for Guyana in the form of a power-sharing constitution.
As an example, we can again turn to the government’s decision to contract the sugar industry. Yes, as all Guyanese know, the sugar industry beings with it powerful and engrained historic, ethnic, and political dynamics. But it requires no deep knowledge to see that a more sensitive and savvy approach to closing estates could, at least, reduce the impacts on social cohesion. And that is a goal worth achieving.
Editor, I would like to use my remaining space to offer a brief comment on the Draft Strategic Plan for Social Cohesion in Guyana, now that I have completely read it. It must be commended as a colossal effort of information-gathering, analysis, and plan making. I am happy to see that it recommends, among other things, the need for satisfaction and opinion polling. But if I were to express a misgiving to Dr Thomas Gittens, its drafter (and my history teacher at QC), I would point out that it contains a serious misdirection in that it largely considers social cohesion as a parallel process alongside regular government actions. Many of the plan’s recommendations, such as employment creation for unemployed youths, are what the government is already doing or intends to do. With this reality in mind, social cohesion should thus proceed on two fronts, notwithstanding Dr Jeffrey’s call for constitutional reform first: (i) awareness-building and fine-tuning within ongoing government decision-making (including local government) to ensure policies and programmes incorporate social cohesion considerations. Here is where my suggestion of social cohesion impact assessments comes in, and (ii) purpose-built programmes to fill gaps and supplement weak areas. The Ministry of Social Cohesion should be tasked with identifying these shortcomings and recommending appropriate responses.
The improvements we can make to our governance without a power-sharing constitution are worth the effort as they can improve the people’s well-being now.
Yours faithfully,
Sherwood Lowe
