Open Letter to the Chairman of the Ethnic Relations Commission

Jul 06, 2024 Features / Columnists, Peeping Tom

---

Kaieteur News – I am writing this Open Letter regarding a persistent assertion made by Vice President Bharrat Jagdeo, which has significant implications for our system of multi-party democracy and the conduct of political parties in Guyana. During a recent press conference, the Vice President again reiterated a claim that political parties are not permitted to organize or mobilize along racial lines.

This assertion, in my view, misrepresents the constitutional and legal provisions governing political activities in our country. As guardians of ethnic harmony and proponents of non-discrimination, your Commission’s interpretation of the Constitution and the country’s anti-discrimination laws can bring clarity to this matter and help disabuse the Vice President of what I consider to be his misinformed position.

No amount of repetition can make lawful that which is not proscribed by the Constitution of Guyana. And it is important the ERC pronounces on this issue, lest the public be left with the idea that parties are not free to mobilize along the lines of race or even religion.

Before I make a case why no proscription against ethnic parties exist under Guyana’s Constitution, let me acknowledge the role that the Ethnic Relations Commission (ERC)  can play in promoting harmony and discouraging racial and ethnic discrimination in Guyana. The ERC is empowered under the Constitution with a broad mandate to foster good relations among the various ethnic groups in the country and to discourage and prohibit acts of discrimination on the grounds of ethnicity. However, in my humble opinion this mandate, as significant as it is, does not extend to barring political parties from mobilizing based on racial or ethnic identities.

Article 160A of the Constitution explicitly states: “All persons, institutions, and political parties are prohibited from taking any action or advancing, disseminating or communicating any idea which may result in racial or ethnic division among the people.” This provision is clear in its intent to prevent actions that incite racial or ethnic division. However, it does not preclude the formation or operation of political parties that are organized along racial or ethnic lines, provided that their activities do not incite division.

The establishment of ethnic parties is not inherently an act of promoting division or hostility; rather, it can be a legitimate expression of the democratic right to self-representation and cultural preservation. Ethnic parties often emerge in response to historical marginalization or underrepresentation of certain groups, seeking to ensure that their unique interests, values, and voices are adequately represented in the political arena.

Ethnic parties exist in a number of countries. In Spain, the Basque Nationalist Party represents the Basque people and advocates for greater autonomy or independence for the Basque Country. In the same country, the Catalan Republican Left also advocates for Catalan Independence and promotes the Catalan culture and language.

In Pakistan, the Pakhtunkhwa Milli Awami Party represents the Pashtun ethnic group. In Sri Lanka, the Tamil National Alliance represents the Tamil ethnic group. In Myanmar, the Kachin Independence Organisation advocates for the rights of the Kachin ethnic group.

In South Africa, the Zulu Inkatha Freedom Party is an ethnic party. In Somalia, the Somali National Movement (SNM) represented the Isaaq clan.

In Iraq, the Kurdistan Democratic Party represents the Kurdish people. In Israel, the Yisrael Beiteinu represents Russian-speaking immigrants to Israel, advocating for their integration and interests.

In Canada and the United States, there is the Parti Québécois (PQ) (Canada) – that represents the French-speaking population of Quebec and the Native American Party respectuively. And in New Zealand, the Māori Party represents the Māori people.

Is Guyana the exception of the right of people to organize themselves freely, including into political parties? Does this not contravene freedom of association as guaranteed by the Constitution of Guyana?

The Vice President’s assertion seems to stem from a misinterpretation of the ERC’s role and the constitutional provisions. The Constitution does indeed aim to promote improved relations among all races and religions, but it stops short of outlawing mobilization based on racial or ethnic factors. The establishment of cultural or ethnic organizations, such as the African Cultural and Development Association (ACDA) and the Indian Arrival Committee (IAC), exemplifies the Constitution’s tolerance for ethnic mobilization, as long as it is within the bounds of promoting harmony and not inciting division.

It is important to differentiate between advocating for ethnic-based mobilization and inciting racial conflict. The Constitution of Guyana upholds the principles of equality and non-discrimination, ensuring that no law or public action unfairly treats certain groups differently. This foundational principle emphasizes the importance of fairness in both legislation and its enforcement, ensuring that all citizens are treated equitably, regardless of their ethnic background.

In light of this, the assertion that political parties cannot mobilize along racial lines is not supported by the Constitution. Political mobilization based on ethnicity is permissible as long as it does not foster racial hostility or division. This distinction is crucial for maintaining a democratic space where diverse groups can organize and advocate for their interests without fear of being unjustly outlawed.

Given the importance of this issue, I urge the Ethnic Relations Commission to clarify its stance on the matter. A public pronouncement from the ERC, detailing the constitutional provisions and the Commission’s interpretation of these provisions, would greatly enhance public understanding and help dispel any misconceptions.

The need for such a clarification is underscored by the historical context of political mobilization in Guyana. Ethnic identity has been a significant factor in our country’s development. The ability of different groups to organize and advocate for their interests should be respected.

A clear statement from the ERC would address the concerns of those who may feel marginalized or threatened by the current political discourse. It would reassure all citizens that their rights to organize and participate in the political process are protected, as long as they do so within the bounds of promoting harmony and avoiding actions that incite division.

I therefore respectfully request that the Ethnic Relations Commission pronounce on whether there is a legal prohibition against political parties mobilizing along the lines of race. Such a pronouncement would provide much-needed clarity to this issue.

---

• assertion, Constitution, Ethnic Relations Commission, Guyana, Vice President Bharrat Jagdeo

---