If the head is corroded, so would be the body

May 01, 2021 Letters

---

DEAR EDITOR,

I agree with Freddie Kissoon’s analysis of MP Amanza Walton-Desir’s (AWD) apparent shallow comments about the psychology of Indo-Guyanese. She has dared to enter a territory where people far better endowed fear to traverse. Shouldn’t the making of provocative and emotive statements and without any empirical evidence, cast her into darkness? AWD’s six years in government and parliament has not led to any political maturing. Well, understandably, if the head is corroded, so would be the body.
AWD uttered despicable racist comments against Indians in a social media programme moderated by Dr. David Hinds who did not find it necessary to reprimand her on those race-based caustic remarks. Worse yet, since that podcast was being made public on social media, the PNCR has not excoriated Desir or dissociated itself from her position of Indians. Indian activists and scholars are very disappointed at Hinds nodding in agreement with her racist rant when he has written reams of books and articles explaining the reasons why both Blacks and Indians vote ethnically – and not because either group is mentally “shallow.” Mr. LFS Burnham and Mr. Desmond Hoyte would not have tolerated such race-based behaviour and would have removed AWD from parliament.
I don’t know Desir’s academic background. I don’t know if she is qualified (as sociologist, political scientist, anthropologist, psychologist) as an expert to pronounce on Indian or any ethnicity’s social or political behaviour. But clearly, as Freddie surmised, her polemic on Indian on ethnic political behaviour lacks intellectual depth. AMD has displayed a ridiculous idea that by insulting Indians and accusing them of being “mentally lazy” would earn her credit in the PNCR hierarchy. I wonder! Does AWD share the belief of mental laziness for Indians in the PNCR and AFC? When Indians voted in 2015 for PNC led coalition, taking it from 40 percent to 51 percent, were they mentally lazy?
Both major ethnic groups have monolithic support from their ‘ethnic’ political parties. Both sides are engaged in a struggle for political dominance through their respective parties in a competitive process. Both sides are culpable for appealing to ethnic sentiments to muster political support.
This type of tribal politics is not unique to Guyana. It also exists in Suriname, Trinidad & Tobago, Bolivia and in many African countries.
In my studies of comparative politics, what obtains in Guyana is not much different from so many other polarised multi-ethnic states including the US where 95 percent Blacks vote Democratic or in Kenya or Malawi where tribes vote almost exclusively for their tribal party. AWD attacked Indians for supporting PPP/C and for accepting PPP’s policies and programmes. But Africans also support exclusively PNCR policies and programmes. Africans lean on PNCR and Indians lean on PPP/C. It has been this way since 1957. Analysts blame the PNC for the ethnicisation of politics with the ethnic split of the PPP in 1955 though some Black scholars take an opposite view.
Sociologists and political scientists would say both major races behave “rationally” since 1957. They support an ethnic party perceived to be representing the interests of their group – racial solidarity. A few defect out of anger with their ethnic party. Generally, in voting for their ethnic party, they are driven or motivated by the need for ethnic security. The PNC institutionalised a situation between 1965 and 1992 to marginalise and denigrate Indians and their culture which pushed them further to consolidate their presence in the PPP/C. History has shown that African-Guyanese are even more loyal to their political party than Indians to the PPP/C. Indians defected from the PPP/C in 2011 and 2015 and voted to put an African party (PNCR) in government; but unfortunately, that government ill-treated them similar to what Burnham did to them between 1965 and 1985.
Despite being mistreated by their party, Africans have not defected from their party since 1957, save for some in 2006 (going for Raphael Trotman’s AFC party). But Africans returned to their base between 2015 and 2020. Even after the 28 years period of persecution (1964-1992), near starvation and political murders, including of Black intellectuals, the African population still voted PNCR in October 1992, refusing to vote for a multi-ethnic party.
Economic indicators show that Guyana made better socio-economic development during the periods (1957-64 and 1992-2015) than the periods of PNC governance (1964 to 1992 and 2015-2020). Democracy was also strengthened during the period of PPP governance compared with periods of PNCR governance. In spite of poor governance between May 2015 and February 2020, Africans still voted PNC on March 2, 2020, refusing to vote for a plethora of multi-ethnic parties. Is that not a herd mentality? Many Indians were known to vote PNCR in 2011, 2015, and 2020. Many thousands of proprietors of Indian businesses financially supported the PNCR+AFC coalition. They, along with thousands of sugar workers and rice farmers (about 11 percent of total Indian voters) voted for the coalition, and not the PPP/C, in 2015. That is not the behaviour of an Indian herd mentality or of the PPP/C thinking for Indians. Had the PNCR been a democratic organisation and driven by ethnic equity, those Indians would not have returned to the PPP/C in 2020.
For the Indian middle class, the most urgent need was to remove what was seen as a creeping military dictatorship. The goal was to remove the PNCR. Even Freddie, no supporter of PPP, and who was pro-coalition in 2015 playing a significant role in its victory, abandoned the coalition because of poor governance and supported the LJP instead. Freddie was a fierce critic of the PPP/C and a great asset to the coalition, and so were many notable Indians such as Glenn Lall, publisher of KN; Chris Ram, GHK Lall, V. Ramayya, A. Goolsarran and others including pandits and Mulvis. They were all disappointed with the Granger coalition, becoming critical of it. Freddie publicly stated that he had no choice but to lend support to the opposition (LJP) to rid the country of the PNCR, which failed twice in opportunities to transform the country. The PNCR has not made genuine efforts to court Indians’ support. Worse, the party has turned a blind eye to racism and bigotry (against members of other ethnicities like Portuguese, Chinese, Amerindians, Indians, and Mixed) among some in its ranks. The PPP/C, on the other hand, has reached out to Africans, Amerindians and other races and pursued policies redounding to their benefits.
It would do AWD some good to read articles and or books on Guyana’s ethnic politics. Dr. David Hinds has penned some excellent pieces. Ethnic political solidarity must be understood in the context of the country’s historical and political evolution. Political party members don’t have much freedom to deviate from ethnic party’s policies. Adherence to ethnic party support is insured through a set of social or party rewards and penalties that recognise compliance and punish deviation. The fact that AWD was not admonished by the PNCR for spewing hate speech suggests that she is rewarded for her tirade.

Yours truly,
Vishnu Bisram (PhD Pol Sci)

---

---