Absolutely nothing is wrong – indeed, everything is right – with voting for one’s race/ethnic group, particularly when for over two decades it has been deliberately marginalised, impoverished and discriminated against by the Peoples’ Progressive Party (PPP). The PPP’s behaviour towards Africans has been so extreme that Guyana was recently described as an apartheid state. Naturally, the PPP claims that such accusations are false but it was called upon, had sufficient time and resources and failed to conduct an independent ethnic disparity audit to debunk such persistent allegations and if necessary to adopt policies to remove such gaps as may exist.
But Guyana is today properly designated an ‘elected dictatorship’ and having solidified its own, traditionally comparatively closed ethnic Indian base by perpetual chanting ‘don’t split the votes’ and orchestrating fiascos such as the Mon Repos market looting last year, the PPP is attempting to split the African vote by suggesting that racial voting is bad and a thing of the past. The letter of former President Donald Ramotar (‘Is racism losing its potency?’ KN: 10/08/2025) and that of Mr. Rajendra Bissessar (‘We need to escape the hold the PPP and PNC have on us for the past sixty years,’ KN: 14/08/2025) are in support of this propaganda mission.
Ramotar assessed that ‘the composition of the crowds at PPP/C meetings and rallies; have been truly multi-racial crowds is unmistakable.’ About three weeks ago, I was at my usual street corner-bar in Beterverwagting Village when two colleagues, one of whom appeared quite perplexed, arrived. He related that his niece had come home crying because her manager at a state enterprise was bullying her, at the possible cost of her job if she refused, to attend a PPP event wearing a red shirt. Donald, this is the work of your unconscionable ethnic dictatorships!
Ramotar’s missive is a good example of the length to which the PPP will go to encourage African disunity. To build the morale of those Africans his party has literally bought and hopes to buy, he went as far as to make the false claim that in the 1957 elections ‘the PPP won most of the African Guyanese votes.’
In 1957 East Indians were 51% of the population, Africans 31%, Mixed people 12% and Amerindian, Europeans and Chinese around 7%. Voting was along ethnic lines, and the PPP won 48%, the PNC 25%, the middle class urban Indian-orientated National Labour Front of Lionel Luckhoo took 14%, and the African-orientated United Democratic Party of John Carter 8% of the votes. Indeed, what boosted the call for the system to be changed to proportional representation (PR) is the PPP with only 48% of the votes taking 9 of the 14 available parliamentary seats.
Give it to Mr. Rajendra Bissessar: he recognised that under Forbes Burnham ‘a lot of Indians got rich’, but it was not ‘despite the PNC’ as he claims. It was because unlike what the PPP has been doing to Africans, the Burnham state did not seek to impoverish Indians as a group. Indeed, the PPP is the only political party in Guyana and the Commonwealth Caribbean that has deliberately sought to impoverish an ethnic group to drive them into its ranks (‘The furtive establishment of ethnic dominance,’ SN:17/04/2013).
Whether he recognises it or not, the position Mr. Bissessar has taken places him on a mission similar to that of Mr. Ramotar, but a somewhat more utopian one. One cannot and should not seek to ‘escape’ from dealing with the race/ethnicity issue, especially in a context such as Guyana. The opposite is the proper approach.
As happened in the United States of America in relation to the existence of independent geographical states and Suriname and Northern Ireland regarding ethnicity, you must adequately constitutionally accommodate your political context. ‘To the extent that the constitutional arrangements ignore this development, tension, alienation, disturbances, and underdevelopment result. …. Power sharing becomes inevitable because of the logic of political cleavage in competitive democracies.’ (Scott Orr, 2007, ‘The Theory and Practice of Ethnic Politics…’).
I have consistently argued that in the absence of collective bargaining, public servants were deliberately severely underpaid and should be compensated. Mr. Bissessar asked and falsely answered his own question. ‘At one time, he was the Minister of Labour. Did he question the absence of collective bargaining? Let him tell us what did he do to return to collective bargaining. … Henry woke up when he ceased to be a minister.’
I was Minister of Labour between 1992 and 2001 and Cheddi Jagan was alive for much of that period. Collective bargaining existed and of note are 1996 the Aubrey Armstrong and Father Malcolm Rodrigues arbitrations for public service and teachers respectively. Indeed, that period must still be considered the most productive for legislation on behalf of the working class in Guyana’s history.
Rajendra misses the main point; collective bargaining is only one aspect of the autocratisation of the state that began after Janet Jagan was forced to resign in 1999 (‘The Janet Jagan effect’ SN: 28/03/2013). Beginning in 2002, once I detected that from a democratic standpoint all was not well, I did what a member of the government is supposed to do. I spoke on certain issues and was called upon ‘write it down’. Thus, by way of a few short memos that were intended for internal discourse only but were leaked to the press, I brought to the attention of the government the possible consequences of being on the undemocratic road it was on and recommended changes.
The editor has the entire paper ‘Establishing Normal Politics in Guyana.’ It is obvious from the extracts below that although I was not attempting to ‘escape’ the ethnic problem like Rajendra, in 2002 I did not properly appreciate the force and dynamics of social structures and thus gave too much weight to the agency of political actors given the ethnic context of Guyana.
I began by arguing that ‘for more than half a century the political process in Guyana has operated sub-optimally. The period to 1964 was wasted in a geopolitical confrontation which removed the PPP from government, 1964 to 1992 saw the establishment of a dictatorial regime, 1992 to date (2002) has seen a governance mechanism that a significant number of citizens view with suspicion but see as irremovable. Therefore, for at least half a century normal politics has not existed in Guyana.’
‘Normal politics exists where political interplay takes place according to the rules and traditions of established democracies and where political parties win and hold power without reference to existing fractures in the society. It requires, inter alia, respect for the rule of law, open multi-party elections and freedom of expression and assembly. Although events since the PPP/C’s victory in 1992 have improved democratic participation, in a sense, the PPP/C is in a similar position to that of the pre-1992 PNC. For geopolitical reasons the PNC was allowed to maintain a dictatorial grip on power. Largely for ethnic reasons, the PPP/C is view as being permanently in office.
If normal politics is to be established in Guyana, we must radically reassess our view of the political process. We must be prepared to help establish and work a political system with a higher possibility of our losing government. Act visibly fairly: justice must be seen to be done. Establish and operationalise arrangements such as the Race Relations Commission and other tie-breaking mechanisms. Even if frustrating, stick scrupulously to the rule of law. Depending upon its severity, abnormality detracts from democracy. At its most severe it is dictatorship.’
I concluded that ‘the establishment of a workable political system is critical to our development. In my view, power sharing is the less desirable alternative at this stage. However, if, as a result of negligence or (claimed) impracticability, normal politics is not urgently established power sharing remains an alternative. To establish normal politics requires a paradigmatic shift in our political thinking. It will not be easy to convince persons seasoned in the extant political culture of the necessity for change. There will be a tendency to want to adopt some but not all of the above measures. This is fine once we understand that success depends upon our willingness to create a truly competitive political environment.’
Abnormality triumphed and an elected dictatorship is precisely what the PPP’s government has become!
