In early July, 300 New Yorkers crowded into a catering hall in Queens for a dinner with the nation’s top legal officer – not Attorney General Merrick Garland, but rather Anil Nandlall Attorney General of the Co-operative Republic of Guyana. The sold out event featured a Zoom address by President Ali and was arranged by Muslim organisations in the tristate area.
This Sunday, and only a few miles away in the Flatbush section of Brooklyn, a group of around 2000 activists gathered to protest racism and discrimination, not in America, but in their home-land of Guyana. Among those speaking were senior opposition leaders who flew up for the rally and Chair of the House Democratic Caucus, United States Congressman Hakeem Jeffries who told the crowd “We stand in solidarity with each and everyone of you to deal with the situation down in Guyana,” while calling for the replacement of US Ambassador to Guyana, Sarah-Ann Lynch.
These two events are just recent examples of the elevated level of political activism amongst what are two very separate Guyanese Diasporas, and the importance that the administration back home attaches to their opinion and influence.
The practise of migrants to America remaining involved in the politics of their homelands has a long tradition. Many Irish Americans who had migrated during the Potato Famine of the mid-1800s, sent funds to support such groups as the Land League and the Irish Republican Brother-hood in their struggle for tenants and for independence. Financial support and even weapons from this diaspora continued up until the Northern Ireland peace process and the end of the conflict. This was despite the “special relationship” between the United States and the United Kingdom.
Closer to home the Cuban diaspora in the US has had an even more direct impact with exiles taking part in the failed Bay of Pigs invasion of 1961 that was covertly financed and directed by the US government, and the 1976 bombing of Cubana Flight 455 killing all 73 onboard including 11 Guyanese. Cuban Americans continue to influence America’s harsh foreign policy towards the people of Cuba, thanks to their unique position of being concentrated in the key swing state of Florida. Recent sanctions against Venezuela by the US government were also partly due to the diaspora’s influence upon Washington policymakers. And last month’s assassination of the Haitian President Jovenel Moïse has been linked to South Florida Haitian-Americans.
For Guyana, the diaspora serves as a somewhat strange constituency, a “Region Eleven” spread out around the world with the largest communities in Canada (estimated at 200,000) mainly around Toronto, New York (140,000) and Florida. Many have little interest in what goes on back home. They have assimilated into their adopted country and are now more concerned about school districts for their children or their property values. But there are many who still feel keenly about Guyana and its tangled politics. They join various groups often closely affiliated to one of the two main parties and attend meetings whenever politicians are visiting their area to hear how “dire” or “promising” it is back home. Others are “laptop warriors” among whom is a fringe element which express starkly racist and libellous opinions on social media that if uttered in Guyana would be grounds for prosecution.
At the same time, as a rule, those of the politically active diaspora do not pay taxes or vote in Guyana – two very important civic duties – nor do they access healthcare or education or any significant government service. They contribute nothing to and demand nothing from their government. Yet still they must be courted and at times confronted. No Guyanese politician passes through New York without visiting his or her constituents. Conversely the forceful response by the President to remarks by Congressman Jeffries and other speakers at the Brooklyn rally shows that the ruling party is attuned to the danger of overseas activism.
The unusual contracting of Jeffries and other American politicians by both sides is a recent tactic and part of a more sophisticated strategy to try to sway US foreign policy. Last year two lobbying firms, Otto Reich and the Cormac Group were hired by the International Centre for Democracy, a New York outfit close to the PPP/C during their elections campaign. These two firms have now been hired by the government. Comments made in late June by two congressmen Albio Sires, Chairman of Congressional sub-committee on the Western Hemisphere and Hank Johnson calling for the proceeds of oil revenues to benefit the entire population…”irrespective of their ethnicity” may have been the result of similar lobbying by opposition elements in the diaspora.
For its part the PPP/C has over the years developed a strong bond with its own overseas constituency. In turn their diaspora, led as it is by wealthy businessmen, may have also had its own influence by inculcating strongly free market values, more akin to the Republican Party than the original PPP/C, which up until the early nineties was an openly communist organisation. It now is the Business First party and a champion of trickle down economics. That this transformation was done under the leadership of a Russian trained economist is equally remarkable. Of course the support has not been unconditional and many overseas-based Guyanese businessmen on both sides of the Diaspora Divide have been rewarded with cut price lands and various concessions, generating charges of corruption.
The divide actually feels harder edged among the diaspora than among Guyanese living here who may have a more nuanced perspective on how this country is being run. Guyana is, as anyone living here knows, neither the paradise nor the hellhole it is often portrayed as by overseas social commenters. In many respects Guyana has a bright, albeit challenging future and one to which the diaspora as a whole has much to contribute.
For example, instead of acting like branches of the two main parties and exacerbating the divide at home, more in the diaspora might want to examine how they can improve race relations and promote better governance. This could involve supporting civil society groups down here which are fighting lonely campaigns for transparency, accountability and human rights. More immediately they could join together and call for the two leaders to meet as part of curing the current chronic political dysfunction. Ideally it would be helpful if many more of them were to return home and contribute their resources and skills in a truly meaningful way to Guyana’s development.
