After decades of political turmoil which has left Guyana as ethnically divided as ever, it would be irresponsible to go into constitutional reform without a reasonable understanding of the nature of the problem and the alternatives. Given its concern with an especially controversial aspect of the human condition, the shared governance (SG) idea lends itself to all manner of hollow theorizing. However, the idea resulted from attempts to deal with a real social expression and the more studied contributions have sought to maintain this empirical tradition. It was suggested some 165 years ago that countries with deep ethnic cleavages are doomed to autocratic rule, but the SG solution emerged about 65 years ago. Geographical division of the country (Cyprus), autocracy (Guyana) and SG type democracy (Northern Ireland) are the possibilities for deeply divided countries and what follows are brief comments that speak to the genesis and nature of the SG idea as it relates to Guyana.
Historic backdrop: Guyana
After World War 11 and it became clear that the British were prepared to give independence to its colonies, the simmering ethnic animosities in Guyana intensified. The Report of the British Guyana Constitutional Commission 1954 (the Robertson Report) quoted the 1951Waddington Report as follows. ‘The people of Guiana are a congerie of races from all parts of the world with different instincts, different standards and different interests … Indian aloofness has now given place to a realisation of their permanent place in Guianese life and to a demand for equal participation in it. This challenge has stimulated the other races into closing their ranks. Race is a patent difference and is a powerful slogan ready to the hand of unscrupulous men who can use it as a steppingstone to political power. Race, too, is easily identifiable with nationalism, which in recent years has been emergent among all colonial peoples.’
The Robertson report then concluded ‘The result has been a tendency for racial tension to increase, and we have reluctantly reached the conclusion that the amity ‘with which’, as the Waddington Report said, ‘people of all races live side by side in the villages’ existed more in the past; today the relationships are strained; they present an outward appearance which masks feelings of suspicion and distrust. We do not altogether share the confidence of the Waddington Commission that a comprehensive loyalty to British Guiana can be stimulated among peoples of such diverse origins.”
Conceptual/empirical expressions
John Stuart Mills. ‘Of nationality as connected with Representative Government’ (1861)
‘Free institutions are next to impossible in a country made up of different nationalities. Among a people without fellow feeling (the essence of nationhood) … the united public opinion necessary to the working of a representative (democratic) government cannot exist. The influences which form opinions and decide political acts are different in the different sections of the country. An altogether different set of leaders have the confidence of one part of the country and of another.’
Forbes Burnham’s address to nation, 1964
The ‘apparent’ ethnic cleavage that existed in Guyana was brought by the dishonest, deceitful, opportunistic, racist propaganda and policies of the PPP that have been able to convince a large section of the population to vote against the PNC. All the peoples of Guyana, …. are equally important and will be treated as such by the PNC. The enemies of Guyana want to see it divided but beginning immediately the PNC will behave fairly and will demonstrate to PPP supporters that there is nothing to fair but all to celebrate.
Sir Arthur Lewis (the father of SG), Politics in West Africa (1965)
‘[M]ajority rule – if it means bare-majority rule – is dysfunctional for such plural societies. The most important requirement of democracy is that citizens have the opportunity to participate, directly or indirectly, in decision-making. This meaning of democracy is violated if significant minorities are excluded from the decision-making process for extended periods of time. Under such circumstances, narrow majority rule is totally immoral, inconsistent with the primary meaning of democracy, and destructive of any prospect of building a nation in which. different peoples might live together in harmony.’
Ernst Halperin, ‘Racism and Communism in British Guiana’ (1965)
‘Spokesmen of the Negro ‘People’s National Congress’ (PNC) consistently put the blame on the rival PPP, (for the existing racial problems) while PPP spokesmen blamed the PNC. (However) … The root causes of racial tension undoubtedly lie far deeper; they are not to be found in the …the unscrupulous imaginations of local politicians, … The burden of the evidence indicates that the cause of the problem of these societies rests not, as we are often told, in the machinations of unscrupulous leaders but in the very nature of the specific type of multiethnic communities.’
The United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Persons Belonging to National or Ethnic, Religious and Linguistic Minorities, 1992
The core elements involve protection of existence as minorities; non-discrimination; the enjoyment of their own culture, religion, and language; effective participation in cultural, religious, social, economic and public life; effective participation in decision-making; the maintenance of their own associations; and the maintenance of contacts and relations across frontiers.
Benjamin Reilly, ‘Democracy in Divided Societies: Electoral Engineering for Conflict Management’ (2001)
‘Divisive zero-sum outcomes are not (a la Mills) an inevitable characteristic of politics in divided societies, but often a reaction to the institutional ‘rules of the game’ under which the democratic competition of the electoral process takes place. Changes to these institutional rules – can have a major impact on the promotion of moderate politics, and thus on prospects for democracy, in divided societies.’
Scott Orr, ‘The Theory and Practice of Ethnic Politics: How What We Know about Ethnic Identity Can Make Democratic Theory Better’ (2007)
‘To the extent that the constitutional arrangements ignore this development, tension, alienation, disturbances, and underdevelopment result. There is little point in blaming the community leaders as in the competitive political environment, their stories do win them maximum support. There is little point in pleading right-doing for with similar facts the opposite story can also be told. Nowhere has this story played out differently. It is a mistake to blame the outcome on anyone. Power sharing (SG) becomes inevitable because of the logic of political cleavage in competitive democracies.’
US President Bill Clinton on SG, 2018
‘The inclusive power-sharing system established by the Good Friday Agreement (a landmark achievement that established a framework for peace and reconciliation in Northern Ireland) is ‘a work of genius that’s applicable if you care at all about preserving democracy.’
Conclusion
The Robertson Commission was correct to eschew the utopianism of Waddington and Burnham. But at that time the intricate nature of the problem and the proposed solutions were in their infancy and submerged by far more pressing geopolitical concerns. The political disturbances that took place soon after Cheddi Jagan came to government in 1992 should have been a wakeup call, but if they were ever acknowledged, the involved nature of the problem was again concealed as old foes and young acolytes, seething with political grievances, continued the old blame game rooted in 1950s assimilationist idealism.
Generally, in the 21st century, all the ‘oneness’ practitioners should note that, particularly when in government, the major ethnic parties have always been able to couple together a few dozen supporters from the other side but: ‘In ethnically and communally divided countries – that is, in most of the countries of the world – the breadth of representation is also important for the viability of democracy (Lijphart, Arend (2008) ‘Thinking about Democracy’ Routledge)!
