This manner of voting negates the true essence and meaning of democracy

Oct 06, 2009 Letters

---

Dear Editor,
Dr Randy Persaud in a series of letters (“AFC in a pickle”) and another writer using the name Rohanie Persaud have repeatedly attacked the AFC for its involvement in some sort of picketing exercise in which the PNC also participated.
Dr. Randy made no bones about his objective, namely, to drive a wedge between the Indian population and the AFC. Dr. Randy sought to exploit the Indians’ conscious and subconscious fear of the Afro-ethnic PNC stemming from the PNC’s 28-year-long oppressive and dictatorial rule. Dr. Randy is making the case that AFC and PNC are one and the same – simply because they shared the picketing line – is the worst kind of racial politics. He is also telegraphing his 2011 campaign strategy, namely, to tarnish and destroy the image of the AFC so that the election will be fought strictly along racial lines – Africans for PNCR, Indians for PPP. Everyone knows who will win such a fight.
I responded by saying that the PPP and PNC are ethnic parties and the AFC has the best multiracial credentials. I also laid down three criteria by which to evaluate which party is ethnic or non-ethnic. I also challenged Dr. Randy to prove that the, “PPP does not have an unwritten rule that says its leader can only be an Indian”; and also to prove that the PPP does not regularly receive more than 95 percent of its support from a single racial group, Indians.
Dr Persaud in his latest letter chooses to ignore my challenge. He writes: “What AFC supporters like Mike Persaud and Annan Boodram are trying to do is engage in a form of capture. Theft might be a better word. They want to steal the sign multiracialism and suture it (join it) to the AFC through various signifying moves”.
All Dr Persaud had to do was to respond to my challenge and let’s agree on an agreed set of criteria by which to evaluate the PPP, PNCR and AFC to determine which ones are genuinely multiracial or not. And, which ones engage in “window-dressing?
The Doctor wrote: “…AFC is desperately attempting to exploit some aspects of historical conflicts in Guyana to constitute its own political specificity”.
The historical conflict has to do with political rivalry between the Indians and Africans, aided and abetted by the existence of ethnic parties. So the AFC is not exploiting that conflict; AFC is addressing that conflict by seeking to unite the races – and to let them see that what ails Guyana is not race but issues like corruption, political mismanagement, and lack of accountability by the ruling party etc.
Dr Randy cited Swiss linguist F. Saussure to help elucidate his claim that Annan Boodram and I are engaging in some form of linguistic gymnastics to prove my point that AFC offers the best hope of helping Guyana evolve into a genuine multiracial democracy. Randy succeeds only in confusing readers. There was no elucidation.
The Doctor is fast emerging as the PPP’s campaign strategist for the 2011 elections. So what kind of strategist is he going to be? A good strategist devises a campaign aimed at bringing out the best of the Guyanese people – higher level thinking based on issues, not race etc.
In the United States (1988) the Republican Party had a strategist named Lee Atwater. He said as they discussed the making of the Willie Horton commercial: “Our only question was whether to put the gun in Willie Horton’s hand or not”. You know the rest of the story.
It is my hope that Dr Randy would raise a cut above Atwater and not indulge in Indian scare-mongering.
Am I an AFC supporter? For the benefit of readers, let me state what I stand for. I want to see my homeland evolve into a state of genuine multiracial democracy. What we have now is an ethnic Indian party that given the existing culture of voting race for ethnic parties and taking advantage of the numerical advantage of the Indian group, will always win the elections. Such a state of affairs is a very flawed democracy. And, as a result the ruling PPP cannot and will not be held accountable to the parliament and people of the country – simply because they will always win the elections.
I am an agitator for reforms in both the PPP and PNCR to end their ethnic practices. The bedrock perception and reality is that these are nothing but ethnic operations.
I call on the PNCR to elect an Indian, Winston Murray; and the PPP to elect an African, Robeson Benn – to be their leaders for the 2011 elections.
The singular act of electing a leader from outside the party’s traditional ethnic base is not a finite act – but an act that will begin a process of changes in perception and reality that shall culminate in the goal of ending the extremely high rates of racial voting.
Such voting negates the true essence and meaning of democracy.
If the PNCR will begin to adopt this simple reform measure, then I am a PNCR supporter. If the PPP does the same, them I am a PPP supporter.
Dr Randy should know by now that I transcend parties. I agitate for a better Guyana. Simply put, a ruling party should enjoy broad multiracial support.
Anything less would be a deficient mandate to govern a nation with such a unique racial composition of the races – Indians at 50 percent, Africans at 35 percent.
In the meantime I recognise the AFC as the only genuine multiracial party.
Mike Persaud

---

---