For Ethnic Impact Statements

Aug 30, 2015 Letters

Dear Editor,

I found it very positive that in its Manifesto, the APNU/AFC coalition in its “Foundations for Development” asserted that it will be “Ethnic Impact Statements of Cabinet Decisions and Government Departments.” The following, first written in 2003, offers one perspective on this subject.
“In all societies, not unreasonably, the policies and subsequent activities of any incumbent government will be evaluated critically: governments, after all, are elected to run the State to secure the goals of that society. This scrutiny would be even more vigilant, especially in poor countries, by those who may have voted against the government, to discern whether the government was unduly favouring its supporters.
It has become common, therefore, for governments in democratic countries – where public opinion matters – even rich ones, to announce ahead of time what impact their policies will have on specific constituencies – be they, as in the U.S., labour, business, African-Americans, Hispanic-Americans, and so on. The more divided and polarized the society is, the more critical will be the evaluation of the government’s policies, since the premise of the government being the hand-maiden of “one side” is even more credible.

One of the major bones of contention in ethnically polarized societies is the use of the State to favour the ethnic group that has put the government into office: the perceived or real discrimination becomes the occasion, if not the cause, of many a battle.
The PNC since 1992 consistently accused the PPP of practicing racial/ethnic discrimination against primarily its African supporters. The charges of “marginalisation” from the African community have been the primary fuel in the ethnic conflagrations since 1998.
The agreement signed by President Jagdeo and Mr. Hoyte in 2001 and the Communiqué of 2003 between the President Jagdeo and Mr. Robert Corbin, were attempts to answer such charges. But we have seen that they simply lead to additional charges and counter-charges over implementation.

For over a decade, we have been arguing for the introduction of an “Ethnic Impact Statement” by the Government before it implements any of its policies and programs.
We have all accepted (hopefully) the need for “Environmental Impact Statements” before we embark on programs that will affect the physical environment. The policy is an acknowledgement of the fragility of our environment and the importance we place on its health and survival, for our own health and survival. I would hope that we would acknowledge that our social environment is as important (and as fragile) as our physical environment.

After all, it has been vividly demonstrated over the past five years that the destruction of our social environment is the direct destruction of “us”. One cannot get closer to home than that: with the environment at least the effect is a bit indirect and delayed.

While we know that the ethnic problem goes beyond governmental actions, the fact of the matter is that we have to begin there. It is a question of justice. No matter which party forms the Government, all accept that Governmental actions have to be conducted on behalf of all the people. Since, based on our history, we know that governmental actions will be scrutinised by the populace for its ethnic impact (recently, scholarships to Cuba and contracts on the Skeldon Factory’s foundation) what is the harm of scrutinising the possibilities ahead of the implementation?

The activities of the Government are part and parcel of our “national patrimony”. In fact, in Guyana – as in most of the third world – Governmental activities unfortunately comprise most of the national patrimony – and this is part of the reason why it is scrutinised so closely and emotionally.

Who would deny that the national patrimony must be distributed equally to all citizens? (Excepting, as Rawls proposed, when an unequal distribution would benefit our most disadvantaged – but it remains a question of justice.)
If such “Ethnic Impact Statements” could be crafted and issued before the announcement and implementation of policies and programs, they would precipitate discussion and debate, which could be utilized to modify the policies or programs before they become political mobilisational tools. To wait for the inevitable ethnic post mortem is to ensure there will be trouble. Big trouble.
The old cliché still holds: justice must not only be done, it must be seen to be done.

An “Ethnic Impact Statement” on Governmental activities would go a long way to ensuring the latter happy condition.
Ravi Dev

Latest News

For Ethnic Impact Statements

Related

Similar Articles

The Glenn Lall Show | February, 3rd, 2025

Follow on Tik Tok @Glennlall

THE BLUNT OF THE DAY

Sports

Corbin century, fast-bowlers give CCC lead as champs face stern Day 3...

Powerlifting to kick off year with...

North Essequibo cart off ECB Busta-sponsored T20...

Construction progress of five New Stadiums,...

Inclement weather forces BCB to halt cricket...

EBDCA/D&R Construction 40-Over Cricket...

Features/Columnists

What Guyanese leaders can learn from Donald Trump

OAS Secretary General Election and renewed OAS Consensus

VP Jagdeo on PPP comrades benefitting

Publisher’s Note

Weekend Cartoon

Bridge Watch

Demerara Harbour Bridge

> Berbice Bridge […]

For Ethnic Impact Statements

Share this:

Related

Similar Articles

The Glenn Lall Show | February, 3rd, 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 […]