Dear Editor:
The dark political days of the nineteen fifties/sixties saw our former, colonial masters resort to a divide-and-rule strategy, pitting Guyana’s two major ethnic groups against each other after the Burnham-Jagan split. From their perspective, the plan worked, and with the granting of independence, they were finally able to wash their hands off one more of the many territories in their vast empire. However, their end game came only after they had driven a deep wedge between the country’s two main racial groups, a schism which endures to this day as the two major political parties’ successes/failures at the polls are based on a clear pattern of voting based on race.
In normal circumstances, post-election, the losing side would, naturally, feel aggrieved but eventually resign itself to the outcome, engage as the opposition to try to keep the ruling regime in check for the good of the country, and start planning for the next ballot. But in Guyana, voting is coloured by the fact that it follows a distinctly racial pattern: Indians showing allegiance to the People Progressive Party, renowned as the party of the late Cheddi Jagan, its founder, an Indian; and African-Guyanese gravitating to the People’s National Congress (now APNU), the party of the late Forbes Burnham of African roots.
Burnham, once he rose to power, realized that he stood little chance of re-election, with the majority Indian voting bloc unlikely to support him mainly because of his race. So, always the shrewd, pragmatic thinker, from 1968 he embarked on a strategy to retain power by rigging elections. He succeeded, hoodwinking the world at large, and his party remained in power for nearly three decades, but he placed little emphasis on racial healing. His window-dressing strategy, whereby he would woo a few prominent Indians to join his administration in high-profile positions, failed to convince traditional PPP/C supporters, and the division became even more pronounced.
The passing of Burnham saw the rise of Desmond Hoyte, a more moderate version of his predecessor, but racial division continued to fester and the modus operandi of elections remained unchanged. Eventually, with significant changes in the world order, international pressure induced Hoyte, in 1992, to agree to elections monitored by international observers, spearheaded by the Carter Center. Eventually, absent rigging, the tables were turned and Jagan and the PPP/C, after nearly three decades in the opposition, regained power.
The present government came to power in 2015 after a bitter campaign involving widespread claims of corruption against the PPP/C administration, which had held on to power since 1992. Throughout their twenty-three years at the helm, the PPP/C, despite concerted efforts to govern with inclusiveness for all, was rarely successful at shaking off accusations of bias against the African-Guyanese population. The easing of media restrictions, which had begun in the Hoyte era, emboldened certain sections of the media sympathetic to the opposition to play a decisive role in diminishing perceptions of inclusiveness.
After Jagan passed away, in 1997, things did not get better for his successors, Janet Jagan (his widow), Bharrat Jagdeo, and Donald Ramotar. Accusations of corruption spread like wildfire, aided and abetted by a convenient, new-found outlet – social media.
The status quo is likely to continue ad infinitum cycle after election cycle unless something is done to eradicate the scourge of racial antagonism. The idea of a national unity government has been bandied around for years but seems unable to gain any traction, mainly because of what President Carter referred to as a ‘winner-takes-all’ approach by whichever party is at the helm. Dr Jagan’s attempts to get Burnham to join in a coalition had fallen on deaf ears, and the country, instead of being unified, remained splintered for decades. Lives have been lost over the years, with little or no accountability because of control of the press and meddling with the security forces and the judiciary by the powers that be.
There are those who posit that a national unity party would translate to a one-party state, a term that would normally sound like a police state, with most basic human rights stripped by an authoritarian government. That really does not have to be the case with a properly crafted national unity government in Guyana. A basic prerequisite would involve sincere patriotism – love of country as opposed to party allegiance – and abandonment of the winner-takes-all mentality; and the two major parties can coalesce with a power-sharing arrangement, something that was suggested (by the losers) after the 1992 elections but, sadly, failed to gain traction. (It would, anyway, have been unreasonable to expect the party that had been sidelined for twenty-eight years, amid claims of rigged elections for twenty-four of them, to suddenly yield to power-sharing). To avoid abuse, the power-sharing arrangement should come under the oversight of a committee of seasoned intellectuals, including highly respected ex-politicians, judges, and clergy involving the major religions of the country.
The benefits of a national unity government can be legion. A bipartisan approach can lead to a drastic improvement in the crime situation, including the scourge of break-in robberies that for too long have been plaguing business owners and posing a disincentive for the many overseas-based Guyanese intent on re-migrating. And, most important, a surge in the economy is to be expected, with entrepreneurship both by locals and re-migrants, and the consequent job creation which is likely to ensue.
It seems clear that for too long, the Guyanese people have been victimized by a brand of politics that spells division as opposed to unity. It’s about time that politicians from both sides of the aisle started de-prioritizing party loyalty in favour of working for the good of the people. Enough of the seemingly ad-infinitum bickering and mud-slinging! The Guyanese people deserve nothing less, and would surely welcome the opportunity to rise from the clutches of division bequeathed us by our former rulers.
Let’s make national unity our goal and pursue it relentlessly for the good of all Guyanese.
Abel Peters via email |