BISRAM’S LETTER IS NOT ABOUT POWER SHARING

Sep 29, 2014 Letters

---

Dear Editor,
I write with reference to Bisram’s letter, “Guyana should hold a referendum on power sharing” (KN Sept. 27th). I don’t think this letter is about power sharing. It is about people in a state within a union being given the right to freely choose whether they want independence or to remain in the Union.
Mr. Bisram cited the recent referendum in Scotland to illustrate what he was calling for. And, therefore the title you gave to the letter is rather misleading. Mr. Bisram is also more or less clearly saying that Guyanese people should have been given the option to vote on whether they wanted Independence or to remain in the “union” with the Britain – back in 1966.
It is an interesting topic that is worthy of academic discussion and debate. The problem is that Guyana as a colony (back in 1966) does not lend itself to an easy comparison with Scotland, a state with equal status to other states within a Union.
A colony is set up for the purpose of exploiting its resources (sugar, bauxite, timber, gold etc), and using it as a ready market for its manufactured products. If only Britain could have evolved and treated Guyana (and its other colonies) as an overseas state with equal state’s rights, I have little doubt, that had Guyana been granted a referendum, Guyanese would have voted to stay within the “union” of Britain.
France’s relationship with its “overseas departments” – Martinique, Guadeloupe, French Guiana – illustrates this political relationship well. Representatives from these “overseas departments” as they are called, sit in the parliament in Paris. These overseas departments are not run as colonies to make a profit.
In fact, they benefit from funds and expertise from France. And, they have guaranteed markets for their produce in France. In this way these overseas departments enjoy a higher standard of living than if they had become independent. In addition their people also enjoy citizenship rights of France.
The concept of power sharing is very different from the Scottish referendum. Comparing these two ideas is like comparing oranges with apples.
There has been a lot of talk about Power sharing in Guyana, ever since the 1992 elections. On this topic, too, there has been a lot of confusion. Power sharing is illustrated in the coalition formed between UF and PNC in 1964; or currently in Britain between the Conservatives and Liberals. This kind of power sharing is done whenever no party obtains a clear 51-percent majority – of seats or votes – as mandated by the constitution.
Coalition of parties is power sharing, but this type of power sharing is not inspired or constrained by the need to accommodate the different racial groups in society.
The power sharing discussion going on in Guyana over the last several years is – to give it its proper name – consociational power sharing. Sometimes it is called apan jhaat consociationalism; other times it is called consociational democracy.
In countries where there are significantly large racial groups (examples are Guyana, Trinidad, Suriname) and each group votes race at exceedingly high levels (say 95 percent strong), this sort of experience leads to a distorted and flawed democracy. Often it leads to political unrest and racial violence. One racial group often sees itself cut off from executive power.
Consociational power sharing as practised in Suriname from 1958-1973 worked well – and kept the peace. Under this system it is acceptable to vote strictly race for one’s racial/ethnic party. The ethnic party leaders can be seen cooperating and working out deals on how to share cabinet power. In this way there is no need for the different ethnic groups to fight among themselves for power – their party leaders are doing it for them.
In Guyana we do not have a tradition of trust between the ethnic parties, PPP and PNC,  that would easily accommodate the concept of apan jhaat consociationalism. We have a tradition of ethnic parties that camouflage themselves with a unique Guyanese brand of “window-dressing” – but they are still perceived as ethnic parties.
Given our Guyanese tradition, I call on ethnic parties, PPP and PNC, to go beyond window-dressing and thoroughly internally diversify and leave your ethnic identity behind. Transform yourselves into genuine multi-racial parties. In this way you will attract cross-racial support, and in the process you will have changed the politics of your society.
In this way you would have given Guyana a chance to evolve into a genuine multi-racial democracy.
I should note that Mr. Bisram is on record as calling for strict racial voting in Guyana. This means he supports the idea of one racial group dominating over another. He may be confusing sometimes. But what he calls for is very clear.
Mike Persaud

---

---