Ethnic Impact Statement

Nov 23, 2008 Features / Columnists, Ravi Dev

---

(The following article, first published five years ago, is offered once again as charges continue to be made that the PPP government is not governing in the best interest of African-Guyanese.)

In all societies, not unreasonably, the policies and subsequent activities of any incumbent government will be evaluated critically: governments, after all, are elected to run the State to secure the goals of that society.

This scrutiny would be even more vigilant, especially in poor countries, by those who may have voted against the government, to discern whether the government was unduly favouring its supporters.

It has become common, therefore, for governments in democratic countries – where public opinion matters – even rich ones, to announce ahead of time what impact their policies will have on specific constituencies – be they, as in the U.S., labour, business, African-Americans, Hispanic-Americans, and so on.

The more divided and polarized the society is, the more critical will be the evaluation of the government’s policies, since the premise of the government being the hand-maiden of “one side” is even more credible.

In Guyana, to the extent the PPP Government attempts to discuss the impact of their policies on constituencies, they insist the latter are designed to help the “working class”. The constituencies, however, invariably evaluate every policy of the government from an ethnic perspective.

The PPP has had to defend every single initiative – be it appointments and dismissals to and from the Public Service, downsizing of the bauxite sector, house-lot allocation, contract awards, against claims by the PNC and its African Guyanese constituency, of discrimination against them and favouring Indians in the sugar industry, rice industry, gun-permits, etc. In each instance the PPP’s explanation has been too little too late for the African Guyanese.

One of the major bones of contention in ethnically polarized societies is the use of the State to favour the ethnic group that has put the government into office: the perceived or real discrimination becomes the occasion, if not the cause, of many a battle.

In Guyana, when in opposition, the PPP (in 1977 during the “unity” talks with the PNC) had pointed out (if a bit coyly) the racial impact of the PNC’s policies and actions.

Burnham retorted that, “much of the talk about unity is not based on class but on ethnicity regardless of class. Where is the socialist content of such ‘unity’?”

Dr. Jagan was caught in his own contradictions and past refusal to state the truth about the real nature of the political impasse and was reduced to silence.

This silence has become institutionalised in the PPP: how can a Marxist-Leninist party evaluate policies on race/ethnicity when the latter is just an “epiphenomenona”?

As pointed out above, the PNC since 1992 has consistently accused the PPP of practicing racial/ethnic discrimination against primarily its African supporters. The charges of “marginalisation” from the African community have been the primary fuel in the ethnic conflagrations since 1998.

The agreement signed by President Jagdeo and Mr. Hoyte in 2001 and the Communiqué of 2003 between the President Jagdeo and Mr. Robert Corbin, were attempts to answer such charges.

But we have seen that they simply lead to additional charges and counter-charges over implementation. The PPP will have to overcome its ideological reservations and deal with a spade as a spade.

For over a decade, we have been arguing for the introduction of an “Ethnic Impact Statement” by the Government before it implements any of its policies and programs.

We have all accepted (hopefully) the need for “Environmental Impact Statements” before we embark on programs that will affect the physical environment. The Government, for instance, submitted one on the Skeldon expansion of GuySuCo.

The policy is an acknowledgement of the fragility of our environment and the importance we place on its health and survival, for our own health and survival.

I would hope that we would acknowledge that our social environment is as important (and as fragile) as our physical environment.

After all, it has been vividly demonstrated over the past five years that the destruction of our social environment is the direct destruction of “us”. One cannot get closer to home than that: with the environment at least the effect is a bit indirect and delayed.

While we know that the ethnic problem goes beyond governmental actions, the fact of the matter is that we have to begin there. It is a question of justice.

No matter which party forms the Government, all accept that Governmental actions have to be conducted on behalf of all the people.

Since, based on our history, we know that all governmental actions will be scrutinised by the populace for its ethnic impact (recently, scholarships to Cuba and contracts on the Skeldon Factory’s foundation) what is the harm of scrutinising the possibilities ahead of the implementation?

The activities of the Government are part and parcel of our “national patrimony”. In fact, in Guyana – as in most of the third world – Governmental activities unfortunately comprise most of the national patrimony – and this is part of the reason why it is scrutinised so closely and emotionally.

Who would deny that the national patrimony must be distributed equally to all citizens? (Excepting, as Rawls proposed, when an unequal distribution would benefit our most disadvantaged – but it remains a question of justice.)

If such “Ethnic Impact Statements” could be crafted and issued before the announcement and implementation of policies and programs, they would precipitate discussion and debate, which could be utilized to modify the policies or programs before they become political mobilisational tools. To wait for the inevitable ethnic post mortem is to ensure there will be trouble. Big trouble.

The old cliché still holds: justice must not only be done, it must be seen to be done. An “Ethnic Impact Statement” on Governmental activities would go a long way to ensuring the latter happy condition.

---

---