Dear Editor,
The frequently asked question in our current political situation is: What is to be done? This profound question has been asked in every country and society in the world at some point in time; in some cases, it led to revolutions, and in other situations to political, economic, and social reforms, allowing society to move on peacefully.
In a historical sense, this is not a new question, but its meaning depends on the circumstances in which it is asked. When Guyanese ask, “what is to be done?”, they may be responding to different problems and may have very different ideas about their causes and solutions. Yet the question usually arises from a shared recognition that Guyana faces a serious problem that cannot be allowed to continue. It also suggests dissatisfaction with existing responses: what we have been doing has not worked or has not worked well enough. The question therefore signals both urgency and a search for alternatives. What must we do differently to change the present situation?
In addressing this issue, I am keeping a commitment given to several people to share my views on this matter. A few programs ago on KAMS TV- Guyanese Morning Time and Dr. David Hinds’ Politics 101 the question of “what is to be done” was a central concern among many viewers. Before answering this question, we must first establish what the problem is, who believes there is a problem, and who is willing and able to act. For many government supporters, there is no crisis requiring a change of government. For many opposition supporters, the government itself is the problem, and replacing it is the necessary objective.
The matter becomes more difficult when we move from identifying the problem to deciding who can act, how they can act, and toward what achievable end. Given the present balance of social and political forces in Guyana, is it possible to mobilise a large and broad section of Guyanese society to change the government, either to remove it from office through legitimate political means or to place effective limits to its excess or overreach?
If the answer is yes, then those who hold that position have a responsibility to organise and lead such an effort. If the answer is no, then a different and more difficult questions follows: which sections of Guyanese society currently have the numbers, organisation, political will, and capacity to initiate and sustain meaningful struggle/resistance capable of achieving the defined objective?
My assessment of the balance of political and social forces led me to the position that, at present in Guyana, united action to bring down the government, or to put a break in the destructive direction the regime is pushing the country, is not likely. I wanted to say impossible instead of not likely, but conscious that society can throw up surprises, defying at times the keenest observer, I am sticking to likely.
So realistically, it is the African collective that can muster the necessary force to do the job, since they are facing an existential threat as a community. Time is not on our side. We have little room to play with. Whether we like it or not, reality will soon kick in, leaving us with no other sensible response but to fight back.
Those forces calling for the removal of the government have defined the crisis as a Guyanese problem. Yet they face a major problem: there is no active, genuinely multi-racial mass base to prosecute their case. Instead, they appear to depend heavily on the African masses to achieve their goal while simultaneously denying the legitimacy of African liberation. Hiding behind the slogan of “one people, one nation, with one destiny” (or “one Guyana” as the PPP state prefers) this often serves as an excuse for avoiding any serious commitment to the self-determination of our ethnic communities.
For them, ethnic politics is unwanted and undesirable. We have endured this type of political narrative for roughly 70 years, refusing to confront the ethnic dimension of our politics. And we have failed to build a nation. At best, we remain many nations in one geographical space without national consensus on fundamental issues. The probable exception is the shared conviction that Essequibo belongs to Guyana. May the Gods spare us from a Venezuelan invasion that would put even that consensus to the test.
I stand by the WPA’s historic position that there can be no true liberation of Guyana without the liberation of all its ethnic communities. This must not be interpreted to mean that a push by any of the ethnic communities to advance their liberation agenda is counterproductive to our drive for national liberation. In fact, it should be viewed as complementary. I believe that there are moments in a country’s history that a section of society may, in their self-interest, be the vanguard of its own liberation and, in the process, hasten national liberation.
While I will concede that collective struggle, if possible, is a preferable option, I remain adamant that, in the absence of collective struggle, it is unwise and criminal for any ethnic community to suspend fighting for liberation until the nation is ready to act in unison. Inherent in my argument is the issue of what to do when the working class has retreated from class struggle, effectively suspending that struggle. For me, politics, struggle, and resistance must continue, bearing in mind the objective conditions.
The people may not be able to make a class or national revolution at this present moment, but a section of society in pursuit of its defined objective can be a catalyst for a national revolution or major constitutional, political, and economic reforms. We must avoid orthodoxy and be creative, our path to liberation will not be found in any textbook. It will be through our own making.
Let me state my position on electoral politics. The very fact that I am in the WPA, whose journey into electoral politics began in 1985, and that we are still in it should be evidence of my and the WPA’s commitment to electoral politics. This reality seems often to be overshadowed by my articulation that election politics at this juncture is not the instrument to deal with the PPP’s march to racial and political domination, a situation that constitutes an existential threat to the African and Indigenous communities.
Given all the factors domestically that influence election politics and its outcome in the country, and the prevailing geopolitical and regional reality, my more than 50 years in our politics convince me that, at the present juncture, the African community’s interest can only be addressed effectively by our community waging a constitutional struggle to end winner-take-all politics and for executive power sharing. It is only in this framework that we stand a chance to defend our collective interest against existential threat and, in doing so, rescue the Guyanese nation.
Whether the PPP will be defeated and removed from office will ultimately be determined by that struggle. In the absence of struggle and resistance on the streets such an outcome is unlikely. But I am prepared to make this unpopular point, given the historical political narrative that shaped African politics around winner-take-all contestation – a legacy of colonisation. This is precisely the issue we must confront if we are to resolve the African dilemma.
And the sooner we come to grips with it, the sooner we can pursue meaningful liberation. In this context, the African community should not allow itself to be consumed by the objective of removing the PPP from office. Our primary objective should instead be constitutional reform aimed at ending winner-take-all politics, and breaking the cycle of one-party, one-community domination of the country.
Whether the PPP is removed from office is not the sole responsibility of the African community. Our cause will be better served by leaving the fate of the PPP to the Indian community. Party election politics can create the illusion that changing the government leads to meaningful political and economic change. Our history has demonstrated otherwise, yet we behave like we are not cognisant of this fact. I have said enough to justify my answer to the question: What is to be done?
Before I close, if this explanation brings solace to those who believe that elections are the end all of democracy, be informed that constitutional reform ending winner-take-all governance does not remove the need for elections to form the government. What it seeks to do is, after the elections, we have a truly inclusive National Government that represents all our ethnic communities and together runs the country.
In closing, my answer to the question, What is to be done? is this: the African community must declare its withdrawal from the pre- and post-independence agreements that have shaped the country’s system of governance and declare, openly and unequivocally, its opposition to the politics of domination. In short, we will not seek to dominate any ethnic community in Guyana, but neither will we accept domination from any group.
We will resist domination using all the tools at our disposal and remain prepared to make any sacrifices necessary in defense of our freedom and meaningful access to the oil/gas wealth of the country. Such a declaration would create the biggest crisis in the body politic since independence. A crisis driven by our collective actions forcing the rulers to respond to us, rather than what has become the norm – engaging in government-made crises. In the name of our ancestors this is what needs to be done. The mechanics, strategy and implementation cannot be determined by one person. It is collective work that must be carried out in both public and private space.
Yours truly,
Tacuma Ogunseye
