By Mark DaCosta- Every Guyanese, when asked what discrimination in Guyana is, is likely to make reference to race and ethnicity – first and foremost. That is understandable because it may be the most visible form of the problem, and it may affect, perhaps, more than half of our country’s population, and that is a big problem indeed.
In a recent op-ed, published by Village Voice News, captioned, “PPP treatment of vendors discriminatory, ” the Georgetown Mayor Ubraj Narine wrote the following:
“The removal of vendors, particularly those of Afro-Guyanese descent, by the People’s Progressive Party (PPP) government raises serious and numerous concerns about the regime’s commitment to promoting inclusivity and equality. Such actions by the PPP, may be interpreted as discriminatory because, it appears that vendors in PPP strongholds are not being treated with such disregard. Such unequal and unfair acts by the ruling regime could easily be seen as social and economic marginalisation of a particular group of people. And that perception could lead to distrust, hostility, and even instability and unrest. In other words, the PPP regime could be fuelling a dangerous situation.”
The mayor, in his article, was making reference to the fact that the PPP government is in the process of removing and dismantling stalls being operated by African Guyanese – many of them in the Pleasance area, for some 60 years. At the same time, vendors of East Indian descent who operate similar stalls in places such as Lusignan, Mon Repos, and areas of Region # 2, are being allowed, by the ruling PPP regime, to ply their trade without any interference. Of course, it is well known that the ruling PPP regime is openly aligned with the Indo-Guyanese segment of the country’s population. It is also, arguably, well known that the PPP seeks to punish African Guyanese because that party is of the view that most African Guyanese support the political opposition.
In his article, Mayor Narine was writing about institutional discrimination allegedly being perpetrated by the Government of Guyana.
Guyanese will all recognise the existence of institutional racism, prejudice and discrimination, although, we may not recognise the term itself. So, what is the definition of institutional racism?
Many researchers and writers write the following:
“Institutional racism, also known as systemic racism, is defined as policies and practices that exist throughout a whole society or organisation and that result in, and support a continued unfair advantage to some people and unfair or harmful treatment of others based on race. It manifests as discrimination in areas such as criminal justice, employment, housing, health care, education and political representation.”
One notes that such a definition of institutional racism, prejudice, and discrimination is an almost perfect representation of the situation that exists in Guyana under the rule of the PPP regime.
Where did the term “institutional racism” come from? Scholars say the following:
The term institutional racism was first coined in 1967 by Stokely Carmichael and Charles V. Hamilton in Black Power: The Politics of Liberation. Carmichael and Hamilton wrote in 1967 that, while individual racism is often identifiable because of its overt nature, institutional racism is less perceptible because of its “less overt, far more subtle” nature. Institutional racism “originates in the operation of established and respected forces in the society, and thus receives far less public condemnation than [individual racism]”
Institutional racism was defined by Sir William Macpherson in the UK’s Lawrence report as:
“The collective failure of an organisation to provide an appropriate and professional service to people because of their colour, culture, or ethnic origin. It can be seen or detected in processes, attitudes and behaviour that amount to discrimination through prejudice, ignorance, thoughtlessness, and racist stereotyping which disadvantage minority ethnic people.”
To summarise institutional racism, one could say that is a form of discrimination that is not legally condoned or officially recognised, but that is part and practice of the institution of government, and everyone knows about it (even as the government denies it).
This horrible practice marginalises and punishes some people, while it gives others unfair advantages.
Finally, we may revisit the article written by Mayor Ubraj Narine. He wrote, “Such unequal and unfair acts by the ruling regime could easily be seen as social and economic marginalisation of a particular group of people. And that perception could lead to distrust, hostility, and even instability and unrest. In other words, the PPP regime could be fuelling a dangerous situation.”
It appears that the Georgetown mayor may have been warning the PPP that its alleged racial practices could lead to outcomes that may not be at all peaceful.
One notes that there have been racially incite civil unrest in many territories – including Guyana.
Guyanese should think about that very carefully.
The next – Part III – of this series will continue the exploration of Guyana’s culture of discrimination.
