Just over a year ago, this column suggested that perhaps the time was right for the Guyanese diaspora in the United States of America to get involved in finding a solution to the ethnic problem that has plagued this country for nearly three-quarters of a century, costing many lives and much loss of property. (‘Perhaps it’s time for the diaspora’ – Guyana needs a George Mitchell (VV: 14/08/2022).
The optimist in me quoted approvingly the following from former US senator, George Mitchell, who in 1995 was appointed US Special Envoy by President Bill Clinton to help in finding a solution to the century-old ‘troubles’ that resurfaced again in the 1960s in Northern Ireland resulting in the lost of some 3600 lives: ‘I believe there’s no such thing as a conflict that can’t be ended. They’re created and sustained by human beings. They can be ended by human beings. No matter how ancient the conflict, no matter how hateful, no matter how hurtful, peace can prevail.’
One year on, the US is involved, and both the PPP/C government and coalition opposition have ears in Washington, with the latter claiming that the former is seeking to establish an autocratic apartheid-type state in Guyana. The coalition and others have established a prima facie case that the government is discriminating against Africans, and the regime, which has the resources to perform a scientific ethnic audit to rebut these claims, not surprisingly perhaps, refuses to do so and continues with its subjective partial distribution of the national resources.
Even before the present meeting, Washington promised help in conducting such a study and given the speed with which the PPP went to press (KN:30/09/2023), it does appear that this issue was again raised. Of, course the PPP’s response to the motion the Washington Diaspora Conference sent to the US Congress requesting support is that its ‘One Guyana’ policy ‘stands as a testament to its commitment to inclusivity and harmony among all ethnic groups in Guyana.’ Given the nature of ethnic voting in Guyana, about half the country will continue to support the government and the other half the coalition.
The opposition goal is to win US support in getting the PPP to desist from its autocratic ways and be more democratic, equitable and competent in management of the country. More specifically, it wants the regime to support certain electoral reforms including the establishment of a new voters list to replace the current bloated one and biometrics, both of which it believes will help to curb the extensive fraudulent multiple voting that usually takes place. The opposition claims that if the elections process is reformed as it suggests it will likely win the elections and manage the country in the manner it claims the PPP is not: democratically, equitably and competently.
Once one is in competitive elections it is possible that one can lose and the PPP’s domineering project is diabolical. The big question is what protection opposition supporters will have against a repressive PPP if it loses? PPP supporters can put a similar question for in an ethnically divided society such as Guyana, politicians should not be able, as the PPP has been and is still doing, to establish policies that go against the fundamental interest of other ethnic groups without their consent.
The current nonsensical, assimilationist, delusion that attempts to manage Guyana as if it does not have a major ethnic problem when every day that problem is explicitly recognised as the major developmental stumbling block must be rejected. It is also foolhardy – and again it is before us every day – to believe that in a competitive political situation, particularly when ethnicity is in play, politicians will place much currency upon moral strictures and appeals for them to ‘do the right thing’ What is required are sensible structural arrangements that prevent such occurrences.
The US government, the PPP and the coalition are claiming to want the development of a political, social and economical inclusive democratic state in Guyana and the US has given a hint of how it sees this development. About two years ago, it called upon the government and opposition to abandon the winner-takes-all political system and establish a functioning inclusive democracy. In general, this column agrees with this suggestion as to prevent political parties from having an interest in, for example, frustrating or reducing the voting population of the other ethnic group will require replacing winner-takes-all with a more consensual vision and structural arrangement.
Where political institutions encourage, and where necessary, mandate the inclusion of as many political perspectives as possible, it is easier for small groups to be represented in the political system and make their voices heard and the national head of government shares power with other political actors and bodies. Political responsiveness is best accomplished when each interest can have its own party represented. Among other things, consensual democracy emphasizes proportional electoral laws, making large party systems possible, having two (or more) legislative chambers, forming multiparty cabinets, separating national and sub-national political units (federalism), constitutional provisions for supermajorities and strong judicial review.
But mentalities are not easily abandoned, even when confronted with real power. Given the permissive nature of the present political system, at the very least the Washington occasion should deliver US support to reform the political system to prevent any government – PPP or PNC – from being able to make policy that affects the fundamental interest of ethnicities without their consent.
