Dear Editor,
We wish to respond to a letter dated March 5, 2019 published by Stabroek News, titled `PNC had their chance to fix Guyana constitutionally and they deliberately chose ethnic supremacy as their tool of rule.’ Mr. Sasenarine Singh, the author of letter, was responding to a prior letter submitted to Stabroek News by Mr. David Hinds regarding his contention that Guyana has been in a “permanent state of a constitutional crisis since 1953.” Mr. Singh’s attitude to Mr. Hinds’ letter was generally dismissive, a trait commonly noticeable with many of his public commentaries.
Although both authors do possess merits in their respective thesis over Guyana’s political situation, we believe Mr. Singh cunningly evades the context of Mr. Hinds’ letter, only to pull a strawman argument to serve what he desires Mr. Hinds to say but did not. Firstly, we wish to contextualize what Mr. Hinds articulated in his letter, followed by addressing the main claims of Mr. Singh’s concerns.
Mr. Hinds is providing Guyanese an understanding common within learned circles what their political situation consists in. Mr. Singh misses an opportunity to build upon this understanding, and instead chose to go on the offensive in a skewed attempt to portray the People’s Progressive Party/Civic (PPP/C) as innocent amid what is evidently an ongoing political crisis. We believe that Mr. Hinds’ description of the issues in politics today can be deemed a political crisis. We further believe that no side of the political aisle is worthy of sainthood, as it is a consequence of the actions and inactions of both majoritarian parties.
What is fundamental in understanding the basis of Mr. Hinds’ contention is how he eloquently contextualizes the ongoing entrapment of Guyanese politics, stating “The PPP… love to regale us with the argument that Indian Guyanese support and vote for them not because of race but because they are a working-class party. Or African Guyanese would tell us that they support the crudest form of governance by the PNC not because of race but because they fear the evil PPP.”
Ethnic identity is undoubtedly pivotal to the majoritarian parties. They claim not to be racist, but they tend to prey on racialized politics because of our history. They do not really care to transcend it into something contrary to the status-quo, but to sustain it. It has become an order, an order which sustains their very political relevance. Without the Indo-Guyanese supporting the PPP/C, there would be no PPP/C. Similarly, without Afro-Guyanese, there would be no PNCR. The situation presents a conundrum with a potential: either we stagnate in what could be described only as a political deadlock or we seek radical transformation.
Responding to the latter suggestion, a paradigm-shift occurred in the 2015 national elections, when the APNU+AFC coalition party made a bold effort to transform this order utilizing the best of two philosophies—one of unity and the other of change—in a resolute effort to garner from the populace broad ethnic or racial support which resulted in their win by majority. Though commendable, unfortunately their model of coalition politics is under threat, posing new questions while revisiting old ones surrounding loyalty, constitutional law, parliamentary structure, and partisanship.
Therefore, for these reasons, among others, Mr. Hinds is right to say that “what we are calling a constitutional crisis is really a deep political crisis laden with ethno-political implications,” implications, we dare say, the majoritarian parties are fearful of openly addressing. Of course,
one could say that the opposition party, the PPP/C, is at the forefront of doing just that. Indeed, they are, as they are obligated to. However, their way of addressing concerns, which affects every Guyanese regardless of ethnicity, race, religion or creed, comes with gerrymandering the issues with the allusion that they and only they can bring remedy to the present chaos. Now, this brings us to Mr. Singh’s caricature of the issues, the second part of our response.
Mr. Singh provides a lengthy commentary justifying why some families of a particular ethnicity seem to be better off than others. But this talk of which ethnic group is better off under which Government is irrelevant in context, and futile to pursue if the interest is genuinely ‘Guyana first.’ Despite Mr. Hinds providing no basis for this response, Mr. Singh wants us to believe that though the “top 200 richest families in Guyana are Indo-Guyanese”, this is not “an accurate representation of “the demographic framework of the nation.” He cites figures apparently from thin-air suggesting that Indo-Guyanese are primarily affected by poverty compared to any other ethnic group.
Firstly, I believe Mr. Singh fails to prove his point. He fails because he is deliberately promulgating mere speculative assertions about ethnic favouritism while excluding and victimizing one group—the Indo-Guyanese population. We reject this irresponsible attempt to create false perceptions of Guyanese society on unwarranted grounds. According to the World Bank and Guyana Bureau of Statistics estimates using the Household Budget Survey conducted in 1992 and 2006, 31.6% of Afro Guyanese are in poverty, 30% for Indo Guyanese and 33% for ‘mixed’ groups. A number was not cited for Amerindians in the 2011 Poverty Reduction Strategy Paper (PRSP), but it was noted that this group has a higher poverty percentage relative to any other group.
There is little disparity in the ethnic demographic of people living in poverty. If Mr. Singh wants to use poverty statistics to analyze the performance of the government, he must provide the truth and not spin statistics to portray that one group is being marginalized.
Additionally, Mr. Singh stated that the PNC is the reason for 3,000 Indo-Guyanese losing their jobs because of the closure of the sugar estates. On what grounds? None. This is balderdash at best. Under the PPP/C administration, the sugar industry became devastated due to mismanagement of funds and failing to adhere to international and local expert advice to diversify the industry. This is considerably documented.
Furthermore, Mr. Singh also stated that “under the Burnham and now Granger regime, Guyana’s human social development has suffered.” By what measure are we making such a pronouncement? And what about the glorious age of “progress” that spanned 23 years of PPP/C governance? It seems rather convenient to have left out 23 years of sociopolitical change and development in Guyana—surely, this span of governance offers rich data to infer the status of “human social development.” Throughout the 23-year term of the prior administration, we have witnessed repeatedly the erosion of the rule of law, allegations of corruption, nepotism and cronyism, and so on, plagued our beloved Guyana. Perhaps one could imagine that if public funds were not used on grand projects like the Marriott Hotel, much more could have been done to alleviate poverty for all Guyanese.
In conclusion, we believe Mr. Singh said it best, that “all of our people are suffering from actions taken by all sides.” It is time for Guyanese to neglect and reject the unwavering onslaught exhibited by those who want to disrupt ethnic harmony and political order. We must emphasize compassion and solidarity instead of anger and hostility. We must try to listen to each other, not to agree, but to better safeguard ourselves from deceptive tactics of those who would have us trade our patriotism for misguided deeds and promises.
Yours faithfully,
Matthew Gaul
Ferlin Pedro
