Wooing the “other”

May 17, 2009 Features / Columnists, Ravi Dev

In a divided polity such as ours, one cannot ever overstress the importance of understanding the perceptions of the “other”. In Guyana, history and politics have conspired to make Indians and Africans mutual “others” and, not coincidentally, political opponents.

Mr. Eric Phillips and Dr. David Hinds, two articulate members of the African community, are assuring us that many in that community view the present “majoritorian” political arrangement in which the PPP has won the last four elections as “oppressive” because they are “excluded” from participating in governance. But is it a “myth”, as Mr. Phillips charges that an African-dominated party cannot win in the present?

All accept that we are now a nation of minorities: Indians 40%, Africans 33%, Amerindians 9% and “Mixed” 18%. Even though the Presidency and the Executive can be secured by a plurality of votes, (whichever party secures the largest percentage of voters) for effective governance a fifty percent majority is needed to guarantee control of the Legislature. I agree with Mr. Phillips that at this time most Indians will not vote PNC and most Africans will not vote PPP, but disagree that this position is seemingly genetically coded to preclude changes in the future.

The ethnic political orientation is a negative one that is inordinately bogged down with the inertia of history. But contra, we have the example right here of the PPP working to woo African voters (in Linden for instance) and alter its image. Because the two blocks approach each other in size even incremental gains become important.
It is my contention that the PNC has not consistently worked to remove its negative image from the thinking of Indians – especially as it relates to the major fear of that group, violence against them – so as to benefit from its share of incremental change.

I’ll offer examples from Roar’s experience as a member of the combined opposition between 2001 and 2006. In the early period, the “dialogue” process between President Jagdeo and Mr. RHO Corbin focused solely on issues primarily of concern to African Guyanese (e.g. bauxite) even after prompting by Mrs. Sheila Holder (WPA/GAP) and myself that the violence on the East Coast should also be on the agenda.

Later, the PNC agreed to the input of Dr. Clive Thomas (WPA) and myself and included an investigation of violence on the East Coast “with its epicentre in Buxton” in the letter to the UN Secretary General on the larger investigation on the activities of Minister of Home Affairs Ronald Gajraj. But in the subsequent massive “Rule of Law” rally at the Square of the Revolution (where I committed political suicide by attending) the speakers insisted on ignoring violence against Indians as they excoriated Minister Gajraj and mourned the “extra-judicial killings African youths”. I had to ruefully point out this omission in my presentation. But the beat went on.

However, even when the “incremental gain” by the PPP is factored in, the vote of the Amerindians and “Mixed” becomes crucial when the two major groups go up against each other. And this is where the strategy of the PPP to vigorously court the Amerindian vote becomes crucial. Using the advantage of incumbency (as the PNC had done with success in its days) the PPP embarked on a wide-ranging program of development (compared to the past) in the hinterland, which even Shirley Melville of GAP had to acknowledge in Parliament. It is a fact of politics in divided societies that small minorities that are not competitors for power will be susceptible to the blandishments of the party in power.

I agree with Eric Phillips “Most Guyanese of “mixed” race are either Indian or African in their upbringing.” But even though the combination and permutation constituting them is quite varied, the greatest constant is the African. In the crucial question as to what proportion they identify with each of the two competing groups, the African segment wins hands down. This was verified in several of the polls that were conducted by our group some years ago.

An interesting development since then has been a jump in the numbers who have identified themselves as “Mixed” with a commensurate reduction of the numbers of “Africans”. We have theorized in the past that this may be due to a resurgence of the old middle class “Coloured” section (represented by the UDP that had been brought in at the formation of the PNC) that is dissatisfied with the leadership of the PNC. They might have found a home in the newly established AFC.

As a reason for the PPP’s success, Dr. Hinds advances the point that, “some groups (read “Indians”) register and vote in larger numbers than others”. We are not sure of the “register” bit since registration is conducted house to house by GECOM, but it is a fact that the PPP does have a formidable machinery to get out their votes. But what is preventing the PNC from doing the same? The PPP maintained its machinery even when they were in the opposition.

We believe that one of the reasons why African Guyanese were disenchanted by our majoritorian political process is because people like myself trumpeted the African Security Dilemma triggered by the fact of an Indian majority. But that is no more: history changes because of changes in the ground realities, and in our reality, the demographics have inexorably shifted.
History can be changed if African leaders can overthrow the baggage of the past, trumpet the new reality and mobilize for change. Maybe they could then convince the PPP of the need for shared governance. I do not see the present insistence on arguing from first principles going anywhere: in such a debate, the theorists can always make a credible argument for the opposing position.

Finally, Mr. Phillips had invoked Sir Arthur Lewis’ substantive definition of ‘democracy” rather than the procedural one practiced here. But as I wrote in 1990: “Arthur Lewis however, to his credit, did not only criticise present arrangements but suggested possible avenues out of the ethnic dilemma. “Each group wants to be represented by its own party and no single party is accepted every where… the solution is not the single party but Coalition and Federalism.” Federalism.