Bourne one-sided on ethnic change agent in Guyana

Jun 23, 2014 Letters

Dear Editor,
Mr. Rayvonne P. Bourne (KN Jun 21) is largely correct in his analysis about ethnic voting in Guyana but he ends it abruptly largely blaming Indians for the pattern of ethnic voting.
He also appeals to Indians to stop voting PPP and cast ballots for the AFC that will result in a victory of the PNC (APNU). Indians have justified their vote for the PPP because of, among other reasons, various forms of abuses they have experienced since the 1950s. Indians claim, with justifiable reasons, they have been persecuted by the PNC, the party of the Africans – denial of cultural diet, kick down robberies, denial of vote, apartheid-like governance, racial discrimination, etc.
Unless these are effectively addressed, Indians have no reasons to gravitate away from the PPP. As good or as bad as the PPP is, for some, it is viewed by most Indians as their best option or as “the lesser (least) of the three evils” facing the society.
Bourne describes Africans as agents of political change when some of them voted for the newly formed AFC in 2006 while the Indians largely stayed with the PPP. This is a one-sided argument lacking objectivity. Bourne forgot that in 1992, after 28 years of suffering under the PNC ethnic dictatorship, Africans remained with the PNC.
They had a historic unprecedented political opportunity to change the politics of Guyana but they decided not to take advantage of it. They did not support the WPA or DLM or URP or TUF or PPP in order to restart and institutionalize a multi-racial polity. They stuck it out with ethnic voting, offering no precedence for Indians to break their racial pattern of voting. Also, after experimenting with the AFC in 2006, in November 2011, Africans abandoned the AFC and returned to the PNC (APNU) after they saw an opportunity of the PNC winning the election because of an impending split among Indian voters.
A large number of Indians, on the other hand, abandoned the PPP that the Indians claimed neglected them in favour of other ethnic groups, and crossed over to the AFC. In 2006, with African support, AFC got five seats. In 2011, with Indian support, AFC got seven seats plus the Speaker’s post. Indians punished the PPP. So which group shows a greater inkling to political change?
Indians have been very disappointed with the political behavior of the AFC over the last 30 months. Because of their disappointment in the AFC and because Africans returned “home” in 2011, Indians feel they have justifiable reasons to return home at the next election. Had Africans stayed with the AFC in 2011, the politics would have been very different since then, perhaps encouraging the population to move away from ethnic voting.
Vishnu Bisram

Latest News

Bourne one-sided on ethnic change agent in Guyana

Related

Similar Articles

The Glenn Lall Show|| March, 17th, 2025

Follow on Tik Tok @Glennlall

THE BLUNT OF THE DAY

Sports

𝐓𝐒𝐔, Region 2 book semi-final spots as teams look towards...

World Athletics recognize AAG Elections

Ramdehol named Berbice skipper ahead of GCB U17...

National player Nigel Bryan represents Guyana at...

Newton embarks on two-week training in Paraguay

Kennard Memorial Turf club expresses heartfelt...

Features/Columnists

The U.S. pressure on Venezuela may backfire on Guyana

The Caribbean: Destined to Grin and Bear the Consequences of Its Self-Created Vulnerabilities?

President Ali’s dawn patrol

Publisher’s Note

Weekend Cartoon

Bridge Watch

Demerara Harbour Bridge

> Berbice Bridge […]

Bourne one-sided on ethnic change agent in Guyana

Share this:

Related

Similar Articles

The Glenn Lall Show|| March, 17th, 2025

Follow on Tik Tok @Glennlall

THE BLUNT OF THE DAY

Sports

Features/Columnists

Publisher’s Note

Weekend Cartoon

Bridge Watch

Demerara Harbour Bridge

> Berbice Bridge […]