Before time expires

Apr 26, 2024 Features / Columnists, Peeping Tom

---

Kaieteur News – As the clock ticks towards the culmination of the International Decade for People of African Descent, tensions between the Guyanese government and the International Decade of People of African Descent Assembly – Guyana (IDPADA-G) seem to have reached a crescendo. At a recent international forum, instead of having a united position, the government found itself at odds with IDPADA-G, with both presenting contrasting reports.

Yet, the sources of the tensions between the government and the IDPADA-G runs much deeper than the differences that have arisen over the withdrawal, by the government, of funding for the Assembly. If there is to be a shared responsibility to salvage the plans forged for the Decade and ensure that the aspirations of African Guyanese are not lost in the quagmire of political discord, it is important to identify the sources of these tensions.

The genesis of these tensions can be traced to the divisions in Guyanese sociology where ethnic divisions often intersect with political allegiances. The perception of the IDPADA-G’s leadership as politically motivated has sown seeds of distrust. This in turn has poisoned the already fragile relationship between the government and the Assembly.

A second source of tension has been the underlying philosophy adopted by some, not all, African organisations that PPP/C governments should have no say in matters concerning Africans. Years ago, differences arose between the PPP/C government and African organisations over the plans for a monument to the 1823 Slave Revolt.

As was mentioned in a previous column, the controversy was never about the lack of consultations. Beneath the surface, the real source of the discord was reflected in a letter to the media, questioning what gave a government, that garners its support primarily from Indians, the right to decide where to put a monument to an African Slave rebellion.

Compounding these historical sources of tension was the initial the slow progress in developing and implementing plans for the Decade. Things plodded along for five years before finally a Strategic Plan was developed towards the end of 2019.

The slothfulness in advancing the work of the Decade prompted the then Head of State to remind those concerned that time was ticking by and that work needed to be accelerated. The Decade will the end in eight months’ time and legitimate questions have been asked as to what has been achieved given the hundreds of millions of taxpayers’ dollars given to IDPADA-G. Any government would have a legitimate right to ask for an account of how and on what the money was spent.

The Strategic Plan developed by IDPADA-G and its consultants identifies key thematic areas:  the economy, employment, education, and equality and expiation. But the development of the Strategic Plan was hinged to the notion of African victimhood. The plan also lacked empiricism.  The notions of African victimhood were evident in the questions posed during the Regional Consultations employed in developing the Strategic Plan. For example, persons were asked about policies that deny equal opportunities to African-Guyanese; actions and policies that  restrict the development of African- Guyanese village economies; discriminatory and disadvantageous practices that hinder African-Guyanese employment; practices that discriminate against African-Guyanese; the  failure of the Rights Commissions to protect African-Guyanese from discrimination and unequal treatment compared to other races; how the legal system and police discriminate against African-Guyanese; and discrimination in access to land and housing as compared with other groups.

These questions pander to the notion of victimhood and lends itself to the narrative that the government systemically marginalises African Guyanese. This obviously would generate tensions in the relationship between the government and IDPADA-G.

Notwithstanding the fact that the consultations and the Strategic Plan may have focused heavily on narratives of victimhood, the actions outlined in the Plan have the potential to address systemic issues.  Also, the government, itself, by advocating for a second Decade for People of African Descent, acknowledges that it will take a much longer time for systemic issues to be addressed.

Importantly, also is the fact that many of the targets set in the Implementation Plan are quite modest and would have already been surpassed because of the expansion of the economy since the advent of oil production. A basis therefore exists for both sides to reconcile their positions and to find a modus operandi for collaboration outside of providing financial support to IDPADA-G. Where relations have been strained, it is always best to move towards agreement on low-hanging fruits. With only 8 months left for the Decade, the issue of financing for IDPADA-G should be put on the backburner.  The government should in collaboration with IDPADA-G agree on a study that would verify the extent to which indicators identified in the Implementation Plan have been met and what needs to be done to meet the other targets.

(The views expressed in this article are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the opinions and beliefs of this newspaper and its affiliates.)

---

• arisen, culmination, Government, International Decade for People of African Descent, position

---