Rashleigh Jackson needs to be more explicit

DEAR EDITOR,

Given the context of Rashleigh Jackson’s letter (“Compromise is not a four letter word”, SN of Oct. 18th), he is suggesting that talks between the ethnic parties can somehow produce a magic formula that will foster “National Unity”. He did not say what he meant by “National Unity”. Is it “shared governance”: both ethnic parties PPP and PNC sharing executive power, both having Ministers sitting in the Cabinet? The context of his letter suggests he meant shared governance.

His colleague Hamilton Green on the other hand was very explicit: “The truth . . . good and shared governance is a prerequisite – a sine qua non – for National Unity, that is to be deep, and to be part of the psyche of our people”. (KN, Oct 19th).

I would define “National Unity” as the absence of political tensions, one in which the baton of power passes from one party or coalition of parties to another every few election cycles; absence of tensions and mistrust between the two major ethnic groups, Indians and Africans.

So how do we obtain National Unity? Let us recognize that the major cause of political and ethnic tensions is the existence of ethnic parties – and our 60-year-old culture of “voting race”.

In 1990, a Washington Post reporter who had just returned from Suriname and Guyana told me Western Ambassadors in Georgetown told him, “You couldn’t have democracy in Guyana”. Why not? “That’s a society where every last man votes race. And, all the elections there since the 1950s have been grudge matches between the Blacks and the Indians”.

Our lack of “National Unity” is due wholly to the intense rivalry for power between the Africans and Indians. Once the Rashleigh Jacksons, the Hamilton Greens et al, accept this basic fact and learn how to do politics in a multi-racial society we would achieve genuine democracy, and with it genuine, not artificial, National Unity. Shared governance is appeasement and a negation of the essence of democracy.

National Unity is not something the PPP and PNC could sit down and construct through power-sharing formulas. National Unity is the result of genuine democracy. And, the latter can only be obtained when we put an end to the practice of ethnic politics.

Let me get to something very concrete. The PNC commissioned a study in 1992 after they lost the elections that year. (This is normal practice – all losing parties want to know what went wrong, what they can change in the next round). The study informed and advised: Based on the ethnic arithmetic, the PNC could never win another election until and unless the PNC transformed itself into a genuine non-racial party and learnt the art of winning cross-racial votes.

Now, 21 years later, the PNC has not even taken the first baby steps to reform and transform itself. It still has a leader of the African race; so few candidates of other ethnicities – you could count them on the fingers of one hand; failed to adopt platform issues to win support from other ethnic groups – all of which suggests the PNC’s strategy is still based on the old template from the 1960s – just try to win “every African vote”. There simply aren’t enough African votes to provide a winning majority.
In America, candidates for high office would hire professionals to design strategies, formulate platform issues and run your campaign. I would imagine if the PNC were to hire, say, James Carville (he ran Bill Clinton’s presidential campaign), he would advise the following:

(a) Elect a loyal Indian from among your ranks to be the party’s presidential candidate. (Create a non-threatening image for the PNC).

(b) Befriend and recruit members and candidates from other ethnicities. Half of the 65-member candidates’ list should be non-Africans.

(c) Adopt issues that go to the heart of the Indian constituency (they make up 45 percent of the population–you need their votes): racial balance in the army and police; develop a program for sugar and rice industries; also a program to lower the crime rate and end road carnage which affect people of all ethnicities.

(d) Create a distinction between old PNC and new non-racial PNC. Apologize for rigged elections and racial tyranny of 1964-92. (V.S. Naipaul labeled the PNC govt. of 1964-92 “a racial tyranny”.

The need to win votes from the largest constituency (Indians) should be the driver of party reform and form the basis of campaign strategies. Purge the party of all racists and bigots.

We are in a brave new world. The Cold War is behind us now.  Large numbers of both Africans and Indians no longer feel they are committing acts of betrayal when they vote outside their ethnic bases.

Can the PNC win an election in today’s Guyana? Has the PNC prepared itself to win elections in a democratic environment? These are open questions which the PNC must answer for itself.

PNC leaders should give up on the idea of Shared Governance. Ralph Seeram (KN columnist) did a study on this topic and proved conclusively that it is not only impractical and unworkable, but lacks merit. To which I would add, if we were to accept this concept of governance, we must first declare to the world that Guyanese people do not believe in democracy. Also, we as a people would have to place all our trust in the PPP-PNC shared-joint government, as there would be no effective opposition party.

PNC has wasted the last 21 years – just marked time – and out of ignorance failed to prepare the soil, failed to forge a new age culture, one that would have made it possible for them to win elections in a democratic environment. Also, in the last 21 years they failed to pressure the ruling Indian-led government to change the constitution, a constitution that was foisted on the nation through a series of fraudulent elections.

As it is today, the ruling party can take the presidency with 40 percent of the votes, if they win with only a 40 percent plurality.

So what is PNC’s strategy today? Project itself as an African party (only an African can be its leader), campaign among African constituencies only – and get a few prominent Indians to join your ranks. Wait a minute. Isn’t this the same old strategy of window-dressing your party with a few people of other ethnicities? This was tried all through the 28 years they were in power – and it hasn’t won cross-racial votes. Wouldn’t Indians today see this as more of the same old window-dressing strategy?

Malcolm Harripaul and Dr. Tarron Khemraj are two fine gentlemen. They are well educated and articulate ideas and facts substantively and cogently – they advance neat and nice arguments why people should not vote for the ruling party. But they do little to overcome the Indian people’s fears of the PNC coming back to power.

The old PNC is still there: unreformed, unrepentant of its past and projects itself still as an African party.  Harripaul talks about PNC leader David Granger as a man of untarnished character, a decent family man – and says Granger possesses values of Hindu deities. I have no doubt that Mr. Granger is a decent man. But people are not just voting for Granger, they are voting for a party.

Mr. Harripaul and Dr. Khemraj can only do so much to repair a “damaged goods” image – but their efforts fall short of what the PNC needs to do to win over a minimum of 10-12 percent of the Indian vote.

It is time to end all calls and debate on Shared Governance. It is not going to happen. It is time for the Guyanese nation to work to end the insidious practice of ethnic politics that has been rooted in our culture.

United States Ambassador Brent Hardt said he is constantly looking for ways to be helpful to the nation. I can identify two things: Invite James Carville to Guyana to do workshops on how to win elections in diverse societies; provide a package of incentives for both PPP and PNC to end ethnic politics.

There is no magic formula you can implement to produce “National Unity”. There should be no calls by the Jacksons and Greens et al for National Unity. National Unity would be the result, if only we could develop a pool of swing voters (no larger than 15 percent of the electorate) who would vote on issues. They would vote one way this election; when the ruling party screws up, this same pool of swing voters would vote another way next election. This way the baton of power passes to another party every few election cycles. And, this state of affairs would produce an absence of political and racial tensions – this is my definition of genuine democracy and this is my definition of National Unity.
Mike Persaud