Indigenous Peoples’ Politics

Sep 07, 2008 Features / Columnists, Ravi Dev

---

In the five years I spent in Parliament between 2001 and 2006 as the representative of ROAR, I was seated next to the representatives of the GAP-WPA coalition, respectively Shirley Melville and Sheila Holder. During that time, one of my most disconcerting experiences was to listen as Shirley made her presentations and, ever so often, acknowledge the government’s latest contribution to her region, even as she pointed out the lapses and oversights.
I knew that Sheila was also discomfited because she and I would both pounce on Shirley as soon as she sat down and grumble, “Why did you have to praise them? You know that they’ll use it to blow their own trumpet.” And lo and behold, one or another member of the government’s bench would later be sure to gloatingly cite Shirley’s comment in boasting about the progress that never ceased under the PPP’s regime. To our groans of, “You see?” Shirley would unperturbedly respond, “But what I said was true!”
Initially, I thought that Shirley’s willingness to accept (not just concede) that the government may be capable of positive achievements was a result of her political naivety, but as the years went by, I discovered that it was actually the policy of her party. As I worked long with that party (GAP) as a member of the Third Force, from 2005, in trying to cobble together a coalition of the smaller parties, it gradually dawned on me that the policy of acknowledgement of the contributions of the “other” arose out of imperatives that went deeper than mere political expediency. It was a product of the worldview of the Indigenous Peoples.
Now, Paul Hardy, the leader of GAP has a bugbear about referring to his party as an “Amerindian” one – and this has nothing to do with a rejection of the term for the preferred “Indigenous Peoples”.
GAP, he insists is a “Hinterland” party. Well it may very well be, but what struck me, especially after ROAR went into an alliance with GAP for the 2006 elections, was that the ethos and distinguishing features of the party were defined by the culture of the Indigenous Peoples. One held group meetings always seated in a circle; everyone was allowed to speak, and decisions were always by consensus. “Cuss downs” were verboten. Those GAP members, who may have been the hinterland but were from “Coastlander” descent, in my estimation, still retained many of the premises of their cultural origin.
And one of those foundational premises is that politics is a battle between “us and them” and we cannot afford to give any quarter – even if that quarter is the truth.
After the 2006 elections, I have taken a sabbatical from active politics and attempted to integrate what I have experienced in the political arena since 2001 into a new praxis. This praxis has been heavily influenced by the example and practise of our Indigenous Peoples and I thought it only fitting to acknowledge this during “Amerindian Heritage Month”.
I have advocated a new political culture that was based on “consensus not conflict” and the need for all groups to share the political space in Guyana since my return to Guyana in 1988. However, after entering electoral politics in 2000, I realised that this was confined merely to words, since by accepting the confrontational premises of our “Westminster” system, one felt compelled to oppose for the sake of opposing since by definition one was in the “opposition”.
But how could unremitting slash and burn tactics ever lead to reconciliation?
We had imported a political methodology from a society that had already been honed into seeing themselves as “one people” and expected it to work in our divided milieu. The contradictions of this approach are so masked by our coastland mindset that we become indignant when the positive contributions of the “other” are acknowledged. Shirley Melville, with her Indigenous Peoples’ perspective, was the woman who told us – the emperor – that we had on no clothes.
It was this praxis of consensual politics by GAP that convinced ROAR to propose that Paul Hardy should lead the Third Force. Notwithstanding their protestations, we felt that even though all the other leaders talked of “one love”, their inbuilt aversion to real consensual decision-making would doom any real new alliance and the possibilities of any new politics. Hardy was rejected and the rest, as they say, is history.
We are even more fractured now; our politics is even more acrimonious. Yesterday one columnist, who supports an opposition party, denounced the PNC and Professor Clive Thomas for not demanding quid pro quos before participating in consultations that concerned our national sovereignty and future development. How do we develop the nationalistic spirit necessary for real shared governance in this fashion?
The discussions about the merits and demerits of Hardy’s possible leadership in the Third Force, and later his actual leadership of the GAP-ROAR alliance, however, also revealed to me the still deep-seated racism that exists in our society against the Indigenous Peoples on whose land we are effectively squatting. The appointment of Carolyn Rodrigues as the Minister of Foreign Affairs has also exposed some of that racism: Indigenous Peoples were never given the opportunity to lead and then they are criticised for not having the proper “background”. Who had a better “background” than Fred Wills and whose tenure as Foreign Minister was more tumultuous? What we are suggesting is that the culture of accommodation that is integral to Indigenous peoples will actually redound to our political development if their representatives are allowed to expose their style more widely to the rest of us.
Finally, we believe that there should be an Indigenous Peoples’ public holiday. To those who say we already have too many holidays, let us substitute it for Caricom Day. “Cari” come and “Cari” will soon be gone, but our Indigenous Peoples were always, and will always, be here with us. To hopefully be allowed to teach us how we can live more harmoniously together as Guyanese.

---

---