Dear Editor,
I refer to Ravi Dev’s letter published in the Stabroek News, Monday, November 9th 2020 edition, captioned, `State has duty to redress imbalances created by its past actions’. He was responding to my letter in the Stabroek News November 5th 2020 edition captioned `The major hindrance to unity is unwillingness of race groups to accept need for adjustments in historical advantages they achieved’. In reading his letter we concurred on the role that historic advantages that race groups developed in the colonial project are matters as a nation we must address and correct in our efforts to foster national unity, political reconciliation, economic and social justice in the society.
Ravi’s point that the state must redress imbalances it created by its past actions is important. This however has been an issue that we as a people have been fighting for since the colonial days with little meaningful success. Neither the colonial state nor the post-colonial state has given this type of intervention the priority it deserves. Previous post-colonial governments: PNC, PPP/C, APNU+AFC have at best engaged in “lip service” rather than profound actions. They all seem to be happy with the situation and prefer to use the racial tension that this historical contradiction creates in society for their political advantages. The obvious question is why? This is an imperative that must be discussed publicly by Guyanese patriots in a frank and honest way.
Another matter that has relevance to the above, is the fact that the Guyana state is not sufficiently developed as an independent actor outside the influence and dictates of governments. And governments are the creatures of political parties and parties are the creatures of race politics for electoral success. In this political environment, no government to date has mustered the resolve to raise the issue of redressing historical imbalances in the state and economy as a national objective of the highest priority. In my considered view, this will only become a reality when national consciousness reaches a point when the existence of the governments rests on addressing this matter. Our disunity and racial division prevent this matter from reaching to the point of a “national debate” even outside the domain of our policymakers. There is no civic engagement of this matter hence our inability to develop a consensus on addressing this challenge to nation-building.
It will be remiss of me not to acknowledge Ravi Dev’s request that I state my views on my recommendation that our Indigenous Peoples should be given representation in parliament that their numbers will not allow in the present governance system based on one person one vote. Frankly, having made the recommendation since the 1990s and unshakeable in my commitment to the recommendation, I have not invested much thought on the details for its implementation. And this is for good reasons since I am conscious that there is no national consensus on the matter and the fact that it has not publicly been embraced by the Indigenous People through their organisations or political leadership. This is however a matter for the constitutional reform process.
While in this letter I speak for myself and not the WPA. I wish to point out that the party in recognition of its political indebtedness (WPA sojourn to the parliament was made on votes from that community) to the Indigenous People, we had conceded presidential candidacy to a representative of that community.
In the present situation, Indigenous People’s representation in parliament is realised through the various political parties and is subject to party control that effectively denies them political self-determination. I am not a constitutional expert, so I speak as a lay person on the matter. To protect their vital interests the Indigenous People need a constitutional mechanism, I don’t want to say veto powers for obvious reasons, that will be a non-starter given our neo-colonial political culture. What I am thinking is the right to a parliamentary provision that allows the indigenous people and their representatives to put their concerns on the national agenda supported by the constitution. I am not sure that I have said enough to make a convincing argument but that is the task of the Indigenous People’s political and social leadership. My role is one of advocacy.
I end by acknowledging that I may have disappointed Ravi Dev and readers by not being in a position to be more comprehensive on my recommendation.
Yours faithfully,
Tacuma Ogunseye
