Mr. Bisram seeks to misrepresent his Opponent’s position

Dear Editor,
Mr. Devanand Bhagwan (Letter in KN Jan. 4), titled, “Antagonists should not deviate from the crux of the matter&rdquo, feels that I have not addressed the “salient points of the combatant”. He is referring to the so-called ethnic debate between me and Mr. Vishnu Bisram.
Mr. Bhagwan has done me and the readers a great service by referencing my letter of Aug. 18, 2009 In SN titled “The PNC should elect an Indian leader, PPP an African one”, which laid out the basis of the real issue being debated.
I posit that this debate is about the need for genuine democracy in Guyana. Excessively high levels of ethnic voting for ethnic parties and a numerical majority of Indians are key factors that have contributed to the Indo-ethnic party winning all the elections since 1992. What is wrong with this state of affairs? The African-Guyanese who form a substantial proportion of the electorate see themselves as permanently excluded from executive power. This creates all sorts of tensions in the society and therein lies the potential for ethnic and civil unrest.
For the last 15 years I have written scores of letters, all calling on the ethnic parties to transform themselves into genuine multi-racial parties and adopt a platform catering to the alternative ethnic group. I have also specifically suggested that the PNC “elect” (not appoint) an Indian and PPP an African to be their respective leaders.
This reform measure will help to diminish the ethnic perception of the parties, and most importantly allow for the development of a significant pool of swing voters, comprising of both Africans and Indians. Swing voters, by definition will vote on issues: they will vote one way this election, and if the elected party doesn’t govern well, that same group of swing voters will vote them out next election.
The key idea is that the baton of power will pass from one party to another every few election cycles. This is the ultimate test of a functioning democracy. Under this concept of democracy, the nation will be assured of always getting a “responsible” and “accountable” government.
Mr. Bisram has chosen to disparage my suggestion of how the ethnic parties may re-invent themselves and change their ethnic image. He has labeled it “ethnic tokenism” and “ethnic pretensions”, and says it has not worked anywhere else in the world.
(a) For the last 60-years the PPP and PNC have practiced “window-dressing” or “ethnic tokenism”. When PPP appoints an African to be its PM but who cannot ever be considered suitable for the presidency – that’s the worst form of hypocrisy in any multi-racial society.
When I suggest that this African PM should be eligible for the presidency (and as the Constitution demands) – this is a measure to end hypocrisy and tokenism. By what strange thought and reasoning processes, Mr. Bisram concludes this is more tokenism, I cannot fathom. My idea seeks to end ethnic tokenism. Misrepresenting your opponent’s position (it is called a straw person’s argument) is a cheap trick.
(b) Mr. Bisram says “appointing” a leader of a different ethnicity to head an ethnic party does not work – does not win votes. His confusion here is laid bare. He believes PPP and PNC are legally constituted ethnic parties. They are not. They evolved over the last 60-years and came to be perceived as ethnic parties, helped in no small measure by the fact that the founding ethnic leaders were also leaders-for-life and became deified in Guyanese culture.
(c) Trinidad is one society that closely approximates Guyana’s demography and politics generally. And the baton of power there has passed from one party to another several times in the last 30-years. Panday, an Indian was Prime Minister; then Manning, an African; two cycles later he was replaced by another Indian, Bissesar.
(d) Trying to conceal his core racist ideology, Mr. Bisram says he is an academic and the great body of academic literature supports his notion that only pure ethnic parties and strict racial voting will work for Guyana. This is where Mr. Bisram trips up. He produces a massive list of literature on all categories of ethnic voting in America, but none specific or relevant to Guyana’s peculiar profile of two major ethnic groups making up about 85 percent of the electorate. No party in America is perceived as ethnic, no party in America wins and holds power for 20- or more years, based on support of a single ethnic group as is true for Guyana. None of the literature he mentions on America’s ethnic voting has any relevance to the specific topic of ethnic voting in Guyana as it relates to permanent domination of one race by another.
Mike Persaud