FROM WHERE I STAND: beyond statements and summonses; the ERC must evolve from crisis responder to Trust

Oct 26, 2025 Features / Columnists, News

---

By Janelle A.N. Persaud

(Kaieteur News) – Did you know the Ethnic Relations Commission is currently running a national campaign called Countering Hate Speech? That it’s being executed in partnership with the United Nations? That there’s even a jingle competition tied to it?

No? Neither did I, that is until I went looking.

A recent video, produced in collaboration with the University of Guyana Student Society, features four young women denouncing hate speech. It ends with #NoHateGuyana. On Facebook, the post has just eight reactions; three of which are laugh emojis. Elsewhere, comments call for the ERC to “do more”, “at this point you should be defunded”. The campaign is happening but the country, it seems, barely knows.

This raises a deeper question: why does the ERC feel invisible unless there’s a fire? Why is it that most citizens associate the Commission with either online statements or moments of racial controversy and not with long-term nation-building?

The Ethnic Relations Commission was not created to be a referee in moments of racial flare-up. It was created to prevent them. And now that the government is preparing to operationalize a One Guyana Commission under the banner of national unity, we must ask: is that a sign of vision or an admission of failure? Is this new commission meant to complement the ERC and what does that interaction look like? And if the ERC had been fully visible, empowered, and effective in its mandate, would we even be contemplating yet another state body to do what already exists on paper?

And more importantly, what is the actual mandate of this new commission? How will it differ from the ERC? How do we ensure complementarily, not confusion?

The ERC is a constitutional body with a clear legal framework. It is responsible for promoting harmony, investigating complaints, and recommending policies to improve ethnic relations. Its powers, however, are largely suggestive, not judicial. It cannot arrest or prosecute; it cannot impose penalties. Its strength lies in moral authority, education, and public trust.

So, if the One Guyana Commission is being established to help bridge societal divides, perhaps it could function as a truth-and-reconciliation-style body, tasked with assessing the realities on the ground, auditing public institutions for bias, and recommending structural reforms where needed. Perhaps it could take on inequality, a deeper source of social fracture that transcends race and touches class, geography, and opportunity?

If so, then it should be positioned as a non-performative complement to the ERC that is strategic, intentional, and policy-driven. Because I’m sure we can all agree that we don’t need another body with superficial solutions. We need institutions that do the deep, structural work of stitching the country together.

Collaboration requires clarity of mandate and clarity of vision. We should already be articulating what that shared vision looks like, how these two bodies can mutually reinforce each other. Perhaps the ERC remains the driver of national harmony campaigns, while the One Guyana Commission digs into systems reform in education, law enforcement, hiring practices, and more. Perhaps the ERC focuses on mediation and outreach, while the new body drives policy audits and makes legislative recommendations.

But that conversation must start now.

The ERC comes into focus once again following the recent uproar around social media personality Jennifer Ally’s racial comments and what has it done? Issued a statement; summoned her again.

But what does that actually mean?

What happens after a summons? What is the outcome of an investigation by the ERC? And more fundamentally, what is this body empowered to do beyond issuing statements and calling for unity?

When “Baby Skello” was arrested after releasing a song viewed as offensive to Hindu religious sentiments, some assumed that the ERC had orchestrated the arrest. It hadn’t. That action was executed under laws related to blasphemy. But in a society where mistrust and ethnic insecurity run deep, perception often matters more than fact. The optics of a Black man being arrested, following outrage from an ethnically different community and the ERC’s presence somewhere in the narrative, was enough to stoke tension.

This is precisely why the ERC’s work cannot be reactive or episodic. If your only visibility comes during moments of ethnic conflict, you become a symbol of that conflict, not a solution to it. And in a country where political identity and race remain so deeply intertwined, the ERC must do more than show up when things go wrong. It must be visible, consistent, and deliberate in building the kind of society where its existence becomes less about crisis response and more about preemptive trust-building.

To be clear, it’s good that the ERC reacts to incidents. We want institutions that are responsive when tensions rise. But we also need an ERC that is meaningfully proactive.

What would a proactive ERC look like?

Imagine a Commission that isn’t waiting for slurs to trend before visiting schools or convening community dialogues. One that commission, there should be regular campaigns explaining the difference between hate speech and free speech, grievance and incitement. The Commission must work with faith leaders, youth groups, teachers, and private sector allies to build a foundation of mutual respect. One that helps shape a national curriculum rooted in shared history and truth. That kind of work doesn’t make headlines. But it builds something more enduring: social immunity.

To be fair, some of this work may well be happening. The current anti-hate-speech campaign, though poorly circulated, signals effort. Perhaps there are quiet school visits, faith-based partnerships, and community interventions that never make it to the public eye. Maybe their Facebook page is simply not reflective of the work being done behind the scenes. And maybe, just maybe, the kind of preventative, unglamorous work I’m calling for is precisely the kind of work that doesn’t make headlines. But if that’s the case, then it only reinforces the need for stronger visibility and public engagement, because trust isn’t built solely on intentions; it is built on what people see, feel, and know.

This is hard work. It requires human, financial, and political resources. A Commission with a skeleton staff and shoestring budget will struggle to have national impact. So if we want a stronger ERC, we must invest in it. However, money alone won’t fix the credibility problem. That requires consistent, visible public engagement and a leadership posture that feels neutral, trustworthy, and committed to country over camp.

The path to national unity is not paved by reactionary PR or symbolic institutions. It requires structure, strategy, and sustained effort. Until then, we risk having many commissions but little transformation. From where I stand, the real work still lies ahead.

Janelle A.N. Persaud is a journalist and communications strategist with over two decades of experience across media, public affairs, and development. She holds a Bachelor of Science in International Relations and a Master of Science in Strategic Development Studies from the University of Guyana.

---

• ERC, hate speech, Janelle Persaud, racists, Trust

---