The Elephant in the Room

Dec 02, 2012 Features / Columnists, Ravi Dev

---

Last week we wrote of the Ethnic Relations Committee being in limbo – but with the hope that it would soon be reconstituted to address the ‘ethnic-question’ which is the omnipresent subtext in our political conflict – but which our politicians seem determined to sweep under the rug. But the elephant in the room will not just disappear.
There are no mono-causal explanations for the enduring conflict. Additionally, one has to distinguish between proximate and systemic factors. Even the systemic factors operate at different levels. For instance, we’re frantically emulating goals achieved only over centuries in the developed countries. They underwent sequentially, three massive macro-societal revolutions – centred on national identity, political participation and economic distribution. Their goal was to expand the equitable distribution of power in their societies.
Attempts to conflate these three revolutions have engendered severe contradictions in Guyana – leading eventually, almost inevitably, to ethnic conflict. Inevitable, since institutional innovations sought to be introduced in one ‘revolutionary arena’ may require institutional precursors in other areas. Sequencing of institutional changes becomes critical because of this dynamic interaction. In Guyana, the “cultural question” implicit in ‘national identity” has been put on the back burner even though culture – narrowly defined as the value system of the people – provides the contexts for the success or failure of all institutions. Inappropriate institutions are the prime systemic causes of political tension and violence in Guyana.
Our political system, for instance, based on the Westminster majoritarian form of democracy developed, practiced in Britain, was then applied in the colonies. Its Liberal premises assume that enough individuals vote for parties based on their stance on particular issues to produce a pool of ‘swing votes”. This pool increases the probability that governments will be changed on a fairly regular basis, since it is highly unlikely that any one party will have the answers to all new exigencies year after year.
However in severely divided plural societies such as Guyana, voting is almost invariably done on the basis of ethnicity, personified by the identity of the leadership of the particular party. The application of the Westminster majoritarian system in Guyana produced ethnic security dilemmas for the several competing groups, in a dynamic and self-reinforcing fashion if they played by the rules.
In Guyana today, however, Indians have lost their inbuilt majority which created the African Security Dilemma: to wit that Africans could never capture the Executive in the majoritorian system. But while that is now resolved, the Indian Ethnic Security Dilemma has been further accentuated. The African/Mixed populace – which generally votes as one – will soon combine their domination of the state institutions, especially the Police, Army and Civil Service, with political power obtained through their numbers at the polls.  This tenuous situation will leave Indian-Guyanese totally bereft of power. Sensationalised claims that they control ‘economic power’ heighten that risk, even as the reality is that wealth offers at best, influence, but not power.
In the modern world, the goal of political life is seen as leading to increased standards of living. The economic improvements are expected to be equitably distributed amongst the people, which in the Western models, had been achieved after long and intense struggle and tinkering of institutional arrangements. Since this was the last “revolution’ achieved by the West (and is still in motion) economic equity is very much on the minds of the local politicians. Will it soon be ‘payback time”?
It is also on the economic question that many of the contradictions of inappropriate imported institutions have surfaced. With the installation of the PPP/C from 1992, the earlier complaints of Indians being discriminated against by the PNC and denied their equitable share of the economic pie have been echoed by African Guyanese. While, the figures show that there is no correlation between ethnicity and economic standing (with the notable exception of the Amerindians) they have confirmed that there is ethnic dominance in various sectors. The government’s policies in these sectors are rigorously scrutinised for possible ethnic discrimination. These charges of “racism”, ‘discrimination”, “marginalisation” and “ethnic cleansing” have, more than any other proximate factor, contributed to the present increased levels of tensions. However, equality of outcome is frequently assumed with equality of opportunity. We have long advocated an “Ethnic Impact Statement” for all Government programs and policies, ethnic economic participation goals, and affirmative action for disadvantaged groups.
Ethnic conflict is not unique to Guyana; in fact it has become the most prevalent form of conflict within States all across the globe in recent years. The approaches towards ameliorating such conflicts are all imbued with the principle that power, in all its forms, must be shared more equitably amongst the groups, as they identify themselves, in the various societies. Our politicians must not bury their heads in the sand.

---

---