Guyana should hold a referendum on power sharing

DEAR EDITOR,
The government of Scotland should be applauded for giving its people a vote to determine its political status. Guyana, as well as other countries or territories where people are demanding power sharing, independence or autonomy, should follow suit and hold a referendum on how they should be governed. One group should not dominate another group.

As I wrote, based on informal opinion of (broaching the subject of Scotland’s referendum in conversations with) people when I visited the UK last year, I expected the Scottish people to reject independence, and so they did — 55% to 45%. But the vote was too close for comfort. Few took it on seriously last year and even earlier this year.

As I noted, the Scots had a lot to lose in severing ties with the UK. Voting to sever ties from the union with England, Wales and Northern Ireland would be like cutting one’s nose to spoil one’s face – there is not much economic gain from such an act. In fact, it probably would have led to a slide in the standard of living, as Scotland lacks adequate resources to sustain independence (border security, free education, welfare, etc.) and improve its quality of life.

Nevertheless, the people of Scotland had/have a democratic right to a vote to determine their status and they exercised it, wisely rejecting independence. Other countries should follow Scotland’s model and allow their people to vote on important national issues or in a localized area where people feel their ethnic rights are infringed and they wish to go their own way.

In third world territories, people are usually not given the choice of a vote on their political status or on important matters relating to how they would be governed – especially on cultural autonomy or self-governance or sharing power among varied ethnic groups.

It would be recalled during the anti-colonial struggle, hubristic nationalist leaders demanded independence because they saw themselves as inheritors of big titles and trappings of office. They wanted to be the new monarch over their people. But none of them wanted to give their people the choice of a vote to determine whether they should be independent.

During the anti-colonial struggle worldwide (1940s thru 1960s), virtually no third world territory allowed its people to vote on the question of independence. The nationalist leaders negotiated on behalf of the people for independence, looking at the benefits they themselves would receive as opposed to establishing a system to empower people at the local level. Today, if a referendum were to be held, virtually every former colony would vote to retain their attachment with their empire (or return to colonial status) as they feel they are worse off than under colonial rule.

Ironically, it is the imperialistic countries that give their people a vote on independence or maintaining the status quo. Some twenty years ago, Quebec gave its people the choice of breaking from Canada. They narrowly rejected independence 50.5 to 49.5%.  An earlier referendum in 1980 was also rejected 60% to 40%.  Another referendum is not likely, given that polls show declining support for the French-speaking territory to break from Canada. Puerto Rico voted several times against becoming a state of the USA or going independent; they prefer the many handouts and protection from the central government in Washington.

Aruba, Curacao, St. Martin, Tahiti, Bora Bora, etc. have all rejected independence from Holland and France for similar reasons and prefer self-governing status. Bermuda, Cayman Islands, Anguilla, Turks and Caicos and the British Virgin Islands also don’t wish independence from Britain, even though Britain wants them to go on their own because of the enormous amounts of money spent on them.

Several independent countries also don’t wish a complete break from England. It would be recalled that voters in independent St. Vincent recently rejected a referendum for a complete break from England. Voters were against the replacement of the Privy Council (PC) even though legal luminaries appealed to them to replace it with the CCJ and even though the British themselves told the region they no longer wish to have them subscribe to the PC.

During election campaigns in Barbados and Jamaica, political leaders said they would go for Republican status and replace the Queen as Head of State; polls show voters are against a break from England or the PC, even though Barbados did so without a referendum.  Leaders avoid a referendum fearing rejection. Grenada said it would also break from England and the PC with a parliamentary vote; the Grenadian government should hold a referendum, since public opinion is against such a proposal. Guyana and the other Caricom states should hold a referendum on whether the CCJ or the PC is best for each state. The same should be done regarding the Burnham constitution or the independence constitution.

Unlike say in Timor or Sudan, where people were persecuted as a result of their ethnicity and wanted and deserved freedom, people generally don’t vote to break away from a richer dominion. Breaking from a richer state does not serve the interests of a poorer territory. Scotland is by no means a poor territory, but it receives enormous benefits from the union – more than what it contributes, according to reports.

When territories talk of severing ties from a wealthy dominion, there is erosion of business confidence as happened in Quebec. Businesses and potential investors get nervous and begin to pull out of the territory, hurting standard of living. People all over the Caribbean reject talk of replacing the Queen as head of state or replacing the PC with the CCJ. The crown and the PC provide a certain lure of stability, romanticism, peace, security, repatriation of profits, and justice, giving investors confidence and drawing people to the shores for tourism.
It has been shown that breaking from the Queen could also result in the rise of a dictatorship as happened in Guyana and briefly in Dominica under Patrick John, after they declared their territories as republican.  Almost all the countries in Africa were transformed into dictatorships after becoming republics.

Scotland’s vote is a modern day example of a state allowing their people to determine their own status. Other states should follow suit. When given a vote, people make wise, informed choices based on their interests.

In Scotland (as in Quebec), they have decided independence does not serve their interests. Scotland’s vote may lead to more ethno-nationalist territories in Europe to be given the vote to decide whether the groups should go independent. Guyanese deserve the right to decide on how they should be governed via a referendum.
Vishnu Bisram