07 Rai embraced Coalition Politics

Jan 28, 2022 Letters

---

Dear Editor,

Kaieteur News – Prof. Clem Seecharan wrote a striking, eloquent commentary on the iconic Indian leader Balram Singh Rai (Jan 24). But there was one slight omission – Rai’s desire to win seats in the 1964 elections in order to join a coalition to negotiate for Indian interests. Unlike most other Indian leaders at the time, Rai recognised that Indians would be excluded from the post 1964 government and made an appeal for Indian votes so as to champion their interests. In this regard, Rai was Madisonian (the American founding father who advocated for a constitution that would represent a coalition of interests). It showed that Rai was ahead of other politicians and political scientists in Guyana. He understood and was willing to apply the political theory of government that would be a coalition to represent the interests of the various groups in the society.
It appeared that Rai mastered the concept of political pluralism in a multi-ethnic society and the necessity of power sharing. Earlier, Rai opposed the PR system and advised Dr. Jagan to reject it because he knew that Indians did not have the numbers to give PPP a convincing victory at the polls. And when PR was adopted, he recognised the importance of Indians winning seats to be part of a government.
Prof. Paul Tennassee stated on Globespan (Jan 19) that Rai told campaign gatherings that no party would win a majority of seats in the 1964 election and that a coalition government would be necessitated. Rai concluded that Indians would be excluded from the coalition because no party would enter into a coalition with the PPP as there was going to be a coalition of the anti-communists. The PPP was painted as a community party by the US and UK and the Christian bodies, all of whom were opposed to Jagan and an Indian led government. Rai concluded that neither Burnham nor Peter D’Aguiar would enter into a coalition with Jagan who told gatherings he would not form a coalition with UF because it was capitalist. Burnham publicly stated he would not form a coalition with Jagan because he was communist. The US and UK also opposed any coalition involving PPP. Rai did not want Indians to be left out of an expected coalition government. So Rai appealed to Indians to give him seats to bargain on their behalf. In this sense, he was way ahead of other politicians as he recognised the need to have a government of a coalition of (ethnic identity) interests – an extension of Madison’s theory in which groups would remain divided and champion their own interests in government.
From the start, the PPP and Indians were doomed. But Jagan was convinced he would win if all Indians voted for him. The US and UK changed the political system to bring about Jagan’s defeat. So it was impossible for Jagan to win, and at public meetings, Rai pleaded on Indians to give him four seats to negotiate on behalf of their interests. Tennassee said that Rai stated that he would demand the Ministries of Home Affairs and Agriculture with himself occupying the former and Jainarine Singh the latter. Rai also planned to negotiate for Ministry of Education and one more ministry. Jagan, convinced that he would win a majority of seats if all the Indians voted for PPP, urged Indians not to split their votes. Rai was rejected not winning any seat and therefore could not negotiate for Indian’s behalf. Some wealthy and middle class Indians voted UF. Jagan was short of a majority. Burnham’s PNC and D’Aguiar’s UF formed a coalition. Indian representation was excluded from that government. The PPP was not allowed in government until October 1992. The UK kept the Indian PPP out of office not because of race but ideology. Both the US and UK convinced Burnham to included Rai in the government. But Rai rejected Burnham’s offers. As a man of political integrity, since the Indians rejected him, he could not enter into a coalition or accept Burnham’s offer to represent them. Burnham also made offers to Fenton Ramsahoye who rejected them. Had Rai won seats, the politics of Guyana may well have been different as Indians would have had bargaining power since 1965. Also, had Fenton or Rai joined Burnham, the politics may well have been different. Maybe there would have been no place for Shridat Ramphal, Mohammed Shahabudeen and other prominent Indian luminaries.
During the 1960s, mathematically, Rai made sense on coalition politics. But since 1968, and thru 2006, it was possible for PPP to win a majority because of ethnic support and therefore multi-party coalition was not necessary. However, since 2006, the demographics have changed in which no ethnic group has a majority. If parties play by the rules of the game, don’t attempt to rig, put together a good team of players, then it is possible for a party to win over members of other groups as happened in 2011, 2015, and 2020 and to win an election as happened in the last two elections. Of course, the government must serve the interests of their coalition unlike what happened between 2015 and 2020 when the AFC failed to deliver resources to its Indian and constituents and paid a price at the polls.

Yours truly,
Vishnu Bisram

---

---