Dear Editor,
I write to address one “substantive difference” identified by Mr Vincent Alexander in his reply (SN 10-13) to my earlier intervention where I proffered my views on the nature of our political impasse, which, I stated arose out of our African and Indian-Guyanese Security Dilemmas. Vincent insisted that even if the African Ethnic Security Dilemma (AESD) had objectively been removed (the PPP no longer has an inbuilt absolute Indian ethnic majority) the subjective perception remains. “People have to be dealt with in the context of their reality, even if their reality is a false perception. It is their reality anyhow that will inform their behaviour and relations.”
I completely agree with Vincent and, in fact, have often made this point by quoting the well known “Thomas’ Theorem” in sociology: “if men define situations as real, they are real in their consequences.” The point, however, is those perceptions were formed historically either through the lived experiences of African Guyanese or through their socialization in families, schools or formal or informal institutions. And can be “unlearnt” through the same processes going forward. Leaders in the African Guyanese community have a big role to play in changing these perceptions to create possibilities for a less fractured politics.
Take the results of the last three elections viz a vis the AESD. For what it is worth, I was one of those who had publicly advocated from 2009 onwards, for the PNC to moderate its image to take advantage of the declining Indian Guyanese population eroding the PPP’s absolute majority, which was the basis of the AESD. In 2011, the PNC moved in this direction through a leadership change from a baggage-laden Robert Corbin to the more urbane David Granger. It then deepened this move by subsuming its name through coalescing with the WPA, GAP and some paper entities to form APNU. This move served to increase its stature in the African community by bringing in the moral capital earned by Walter Rodney. From 34.07% of the votes in 2006, as APNU they increased that to 40.81% in 2011. The AFC meanwhile had garnered 8.83% in 2006 and increased this to 10.3% by going frontally for the Indian Guyanese vote in Berbice with Moses Nagamootoo on their ticket. AFC and APNU now had a majority in Parliament and the PPP was only able to secure the presidency through the peculiar plurality rule of our constitution.
The next step – to coalesce with the AFC for the 2015 elections – might have seemed inevitable but was facilitated by the new image of the PNC-as-APNU. And the APNU/AFC coalition did win the 2015 elections by securing 50.3% of the ballots. What this demonstrated was the PNC could win elections if they moderated their stance vis a vis other ethnic groups and were able to secure cross over votes – whether on their own or in a coalition.
While Vincent is claiming that these three elections are insufficient “evidence of ethnic political fluidity” , unlike David Granger’s PNC, the PPP has won the 2020 elections with – at maximum – their core ethnic base below 40% by encouraging that same “ethnic fluidity” that Vincent dismisses. Leaders in the African Guyanese community have to educate their core constituency that David Granger and his coterie, who were handed leadership of the PNC, have only themselves to blame for frittering away the moral capital of Rodney’s legacy and the cross-over Indian votes brought by the AFC through their ineptness (at best).
Guyana can now practice the democratic politics of “in and out” rather than the toxic one of “over and under” if leaders can take advantage of the new opportunities presented by the new demographics.
We will return to the other points made by Vincent subsequently, since this letter has probably already taxed our readers’ attention span.
Yours faithfully,
Ravi Dev
