Guyana: A country and culture of discrimination – Part I

By Mark DaCosta- It is common in Guyana to hear politicians talk about unity, even as they frequently condemn acts of discrimination. For example, officials of the ruling People’s Progressive Party (PPP) regime – particularly the Head of State himself, President Irfaan Ali – often talk about his government’s “one Guyana Policy.” Such utterances are clearly intended to convey the message that the PPP stands for inclusivity, equality, and equity. Such fervent speeches by officials of the ruling regime may have been prompted by the fact that the PPP has been accused of institutionalised discrimination – particularly racism. The fact that the PPP regime tries – so very forcefully, and frequently – to deflect such accusations and criticisms may be interpreted in one way or another by Guyanese. Perhaps, the PPP regime “protests too much.”

This series of articles, though, is not only about PPP discrimination. Instead, it is about the fact that Guyana remains a country overflowing with discriminatory practices, many of which appear to be immovably rooted in the Guyanese psyche. Prejudice and discrimination in Guyana run the entire spectrum and slate: there are subtle and blatant discrimination at almost all levels of individual life and community relations. And there is institutionalised – even legalised – discrimination at the highest political levels.

This series examines what is discrimination, what are its common forms and types in Guyana, why people discriminate, where it occurs, how it is done, what are the effects, and what may be possible solutions?

Discrimination is defined as, “the act of making unfair or prejudicial distinctions between people based on the groups, classes, or other categories to which those people belong or are perceived to belong, such as race, gender, age, religion, nationality, physical abilities, or sexual orientation. Discrimination especially occurs when individuals or groups are unfairly treated in a way which is worse than other people are treated, on the basis of their actual or perceived membership in certain groups or social categories. It involves restricting members of one group from opportunities or privileges that are available to members of another group.”

At this point, one should take note of the following:

Discrimination and prejudice are related concepts, however, there is a small but important difference. Discrimination is an act against a person or a group of people, while, on the other hand, prejudice is the feeling or belief that another group is inferior and different. In other words, prejudice is the unfounded and baseless cause, and discrimination is the ugly result.

Discrimination has been viewed in two ways over the years. There has been a moralised view, and a non-moralised standard.

When ancient philosophers first started to think about the matter, they held the moralised view that discrimination is simply wrong. Many modern thinkers still hold that view. They believe that, Under this approach, discrimination is defined as acts, practices, or policies that wrongfully impose a relative disadvantage or deprivation on persons based on their membership in a salient social group. This is a comparative definition; it makes a comparison between two or more involved groups. Those philosophers believe that an individual need not be actually harmed in order to be discriminated against. He or she just needs to be treated worse than others for some reason.

However, as history progressed, and laws were formulated, a non- moralised definition of discrimination was needed. As such, the United Nations (UN) stance on discrimination includes the statement: “Discriminatory behaviors take many forms, but they all involve some form of exclusion or rejection.”

To summarise the two views: the moralised view is closer to the inclusion of prejudice as a cause of discrimination. On the other hand, the non-moralised standard does not care about the cause, or about a comparison, only about the fact that discrimination is happening at all.

Finally, it must be stated that this publication takes the position that both views are acceptable. Furthermore, the moralised view – that takes the cause of discrimination into consideration – is the model that must be embraced if one were to search for a solution to the problem. While the non-moralised one is necessary for legislative purposes.

The remaining parts of this series will continue the examination of this problem in the context of Guyana’s realities.