Dear Editor,
I have differed from much of the commentary and analysis of the current political impasse in Guyana which have tended to confine the issue to a problem electoral democracy. I believe that that is a narrow and inadequate reading of the situation. My fear is that if there is a narrow or what I refer to as a minimalist diagnosis of the problem, then there would logically be a narrow solution. I think that at the heart of the problem is a convergence of multiple factors.
First, there is the issue of electoral democracy whereby the country continues to struggle with the problem of credible elections which are acceptable to all parties. This is an old problem that dates back to 1961. Both of the major parties have accused the other of electoral rigging. There is enough evidence that given our ethnic geography both parties have benefited from tampering with the process in areas where their support base predominates. The ongoing recount seems to be supporting this thesis. Of note is that the party that is in opposition more often than not has been able to pin the label on the ruling party. This was so in 1961 when the PNC was able to “prove” that the PPP had rigged that election.
The tables turned on the PNC from 1968 to 1985 when the PPP and others were able to paint the then ruling PNC as chronic riggers. With the change in government in 1992, the tide swung the other way as the PNC became more vocal with charges of rigging by the PPP. Finally, in 2015 and 2020 the PPP has been louder in its charges of rigging by the PNC. Former President Donald Ramotar on a recent programme in which I participated revealed that he still believes that the 2015 elections were rigged in favour of the APNU+AFC and called for an investigation of that election.
I have recounted the above to correct the narrative that is being promoted that electoral rigging is a one-sided phenomenon. It is not. And to give the younger generation the impression that it is only one party that has been accused of rigging elections is a blatant falsification of history. True, one party has been more successful in pinning the tag on the other one. But that does not erase the fact that both parties have been accused of the infraction. What appears to be unfolding before us in 2020 is that for the first time both parties are bent on simultaneously exposing the fraud of the other.
The second factor at play is the underlying ethnic problem which both parties know exists but for obvious reasons they downplay. All elections since adult suffrage was introduced beginning in 1953 have been sites of ethnic contestation. This is not unique to Guyana; it is the case in all ethnically divided societies. In Guyana, winning control of the government is the ultimate prize because it gives the party the power to distribute economic and cultural resources. And each ethnic group has more confidence in their ethnic party to steer resources to their group. Now for the first time, the outcome of an election would give the winning party control of enormous economic wealth.
I come to the third factor—the external factor. Unfortunately, from 1953 to the present external forces, in particular the USA and Britain, have always exerted tremendous influence on Guyana’s domestic affairs. It is partly due to Guy-ana’s status as a small dependent country, partly due to the Guyanese political leaders inability to work out their differences on their own and partly because for a long time Guyana presented a threat to the ideological interests of the Western countries. Now in 2020, the primary interest of the West in Guyana is its newly found oil wealth. All other interests are in the service of that primary interests. Thanks to our own Walter Rodney, Clive Thomas, and other dependency theorists we know that the wealth of rich countries is directly linked to the exploitation of the wealth of smaller, weaker countries.
I am on record as saying that the ABCE countries have openly chosen a side in the current standoff—they have taken the PPP’s side. Speaking on a Globespan 24/7 programme on Monday May 18 Anil Nandlall boasted that the PPP has all the diplomatic community including CARICOM on its side. It is no idle boast. Of course, no country will say openly it is backing a party in another country. They always shelter their support under some noble principle like democracy. This is what is happening now in Guyana, but it is not new.
In the PPP-PNC conflict of the early 1960s the USA and Britain openly sided with the PNC. They saw the PPP then as a threat to Western democracy. For two decades they supported the PNC authoritarian regime—the very authoritarianism that they are now threatening to sanction the PNC for. And during that period the PPP cursed the West left, right and centre for interference in Guyanese affairs in order to keep the PPP out of power. It is the irony of ironies to hear the Caribbean’s foremost anti-imperialist party calling for Western sanctions in Guyana. I wonder whether the Cheddi and Janet Jagan are turning in their graves.
In 1992 the West switched their support away from the PNC towards the PPP. The Cold War had ended, and Guyana was less of a threat to their interests and of little concern to their overall global calculations. So, through the Carter Center they pursued more of a mediatory role. But now with the coming of oil, all that has changed. Guyana is once again central to Western interests. And once again the West has overtly taken a side.
I pen the above not to curse out the Western countries. There is no benefit in doing that. In international relations all countries seek to maximize their interests. But the big countries have the strength and power to do so. That is just the way it is. What is of concern for me is this. I think the Western countries are making a mistake in so overtly showing their hands. They have dealt with Guyana long enough to know that our problem is not one of simply democratic deficit—it is essentially an ethnic conflict. And it is always dangerous for outsiders to immerse themselves in one side of a domestic conflict.
I still think that the West could pursue their economic and political interests while serving as a mediator. And my warning to the PPP which is inviting sanctions on Guyana is that so long as they cannot sit down with the PNC and look for common solutions, we would never be truly independent. And the oil wealth that each side craves would never materialize to Guyana’s benefit so long as we remain as divided as we are.
Yours faithfully,
David Hinds
