The bigoted masses

Feb 23, 2019 Features / Columnists, Peeping Tom

The most dominant theme in the discourse on politics in Guyana is about the failure of the two main political parties, the People’s Progressive Party Civic (PPPC) and the People’s National Congress Reform (PNCR). It is contended that these two political behemoths have divided the Guyanese people, and it is this division which accounts for the country’s problems.
This column offers an alternative view. It argues that the political parties are mere reflections of the society, and it is the bigotry of the masses which has led to the politics of division, rather than the other way around.
The existing political parties are constrained in their political mobilization, because their leaders are drawn from a polarized base. Both of the main political parties have been unable to become multiracial parties, because their core membership will not allow them to do so. The problem is not just the parties; it is also their support bases, which prefer them to be ethnic parties.
Both Burnham and Jagan tried to woo multiracial membership. Burnham canvassed Indian support when he was in power, but he found that Indians never forgave him for the racial riots of the 1960’s. Despite the severe problems in the economy in the 1980’s, Jagan was unable to attract a significant African base within the PPPC.
It is not for the want of trying by these two leaders, that their parties did not become multiracial. Racial and ethnic prejudices have remained entrenched, with each side concerned about keeping the other away from control of government.
Today is the 49th year since Guyana became a Republic. In those forty- nine years, Guyana’s has remained a developing country and its politics has remained polarized.
As a developing country, the debate should have been about how the country should be ruled. But that has not been the central debate. The main debate has been more about who should rule. The debate has been about which party should govern – the People’s Progressive Party or the People’s National Congress.
And the solution which has been proposed conveniently has been for shared governance. Both parties have spoken in support of some system of shared governance. But it has not happened, because when one side is in office, it hugs political power to the exclusion of the other.
The PPPC spoke about the need to build political trust. But it did nothing to do so. APNU promised that despite what happened in the 2015 elections, it would bring the PPPC into the government. It has not done so. And presented now with the perfect opportunity to do since December 21, 2018, it has not done so.
Both of the main political parties are not being pressured by their constituencies to move towards inclusive governance. And the reason is that, by and large, the vast majority of these supporters are more concerned with who should rule rather than the substance of that rule.
The no-confidence vote (NCV) has exposed the bigotry of the masses. The NCV issue has divided the public as few issues ever have. The supporters of the government are refusing to accept that the government should call elections while the opposition supporters are pressing for the resignation of the Cabinet and new elections.
The public debate has long dismissed issues about respecting the Constitution – the sacred text of a secular state. It is the Constitution to which the public should look to determine what is right and what is wrong, what is lawful and what is not lawful. The debate has been about holding on to power, even if it means thwarting the Constitution.
The purpose of the Constitution is to protect citizens. Not so long ago, the government revoked the leases issued to farmers. The farmers claimed they were deprived of their property and they sued on the grounds that their constitutional right was violated. They won.
There was another attempt by government to compulsorily acquire a piece of land in the city. There were again concerns about the constitutionality of this decision. The government backed-off. What would have happened if there were no constitution to prevent arbitrary acquisitions?
Like the NCV, these are issues about how political power should be exercised; that is, how the state should be governed. But instead of addressing the principles which should guide political action after the NCV, the public is polarized because they are more concerned with another debate – who should rule.

Discover more from Kaieteur News

Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.

Latest News