guyanacaribbeanpolitics.com

ETHNIC INSECURITIES
by Ravi Dev

Posted June 15th. 2005

(There has been much excitement about the emergent " Third Force". While ROAR is very supportive of this development, it cautions that no political force, new or old, can ignore the primary mover of modern Guyanese politics - the Ethnic Security Dilemmas. We submit an extract from our seminal 1990 paper, For a New Political Culture, which introduced the term, to stimulate discussion - especially as to how much has changed since then.)

East Indians began to enter the 'open' society in the l920's following the end of indentureship. Many indentured Indians had exchanged their return passage to India for small plots of land - often swampy and marginal - that they cultivated to buttress their meagre wages. Others raised cattle. WW1 (1914-1918) gave a big boost to the local rice industry and many Indians were lifted out of their subsistence life. Indians also gravitated into petty retailing - replacing the Portuguese and Chinese who had moved to the city, or went into competition with them. The Indians, without obtaining any preferential credit, survived the competition against the Portuguese, unlike the Coloureds and Africans after Emancipation. From the independent economic base Indians had constructed on rice, cattle and petty retailing, they entered the educational, professional, business and civil service fields in ever increasing numbers in the 1930's. The state sector had been closed to them.

By then, change was being generated in the Indian upper stratum and their nascent elite would now attempt to compete with the African and Colored elite even in their traditional preserve - the Civil Service. The world depression was having an effect in Guyana that manifested itself in heightened labour agitation. The British Guiana East Indian Association (BGEIA), which had been formed in Berbice in 1916 by middle class and mostly Christian Indians, took off when it was transplanted to Georgetown in 1920. While in most respects the BGEIA remained an urban-based, middle-class, English educated organization, they were very much connected organically to the ordinary problems of the Indians in the Plantations. The sugar industry, in which most of the Indians workforce was engaged, tightened its belt and life became even more brutish and short. An official of the BGEIA, Ayube Edun, formed a sugar union, the Man Power Citizen Association (MPCA) in 1937. Indians were beginning to assert themselves.

The Coloured and African elite were also organizing themselves and seeking to protect and increase their gains in the society. The United Negro Improvement Association (UNIA) of Marcus Garvey out of the U.S. had formed several branches across Guyana by the thirties. The London-originated League of Coloured People (LCP) however was the organization that became the most established and had the most impact. They were in the forefront to confront what was seen as Indian encroachment on the Coloured/African preserve by the thirties. "Somehow, they (LCP) saw the Afro-Guyanese hanging together and advancing politically on their own. They were already envious of the economic strides the Indo-Guyanese had made and considered them a threat"[Ashton Chase].

The competition for the same valued resources [high status jobs] might then explain conflict between the Indian and Africans elites, but cannot do so for the lower strata. Yet the latter have been most enthusiastic in support of their elites, contrary to their supposedly more rational and rewarding class interests, which would have dictated that they act in opposition to the elites' ambitions. The point however, is that when Indians begun moving into the middle class, the effect was to change the stratification pattern from one where class and ethnicity were coincident, to a cross-reticulated one where some East Indians could have had the opportunity of occupying higher strata. However the unintended consequence was to challenge long held notions of group-worth - especially amongst the Coloureds and Africans.

The Coloureds because of their White forbears, preferential recruitment into the junior bureaucratic positions of the civil service and their greater emulation of 'English culture', had conferred legitimacy upon themselves as the inheritors of the colonial mantle with all its pretensions and privileges. The African community had conceded this presumption, and in fact, buttressed it in seeking elevation of their status by entry into the Coloured section through marriage, education, life style and money, which state jobs provided. The arrival of the Indian middle class in the late thirties, the enlargement of the franchise to include more Indians in 1947, the arrival of the universal franchise in l953, and the political mobilization of the East Indian masses by Dr. Cheddi Jagan in l950, threatened that presumption and deepened the historic suspicion and fears of the African community for Indians.

As late as l965, as documented by the International Commission of Jurists (ICJ), East Indians were still greatly under represented in most key areas of the state sector in relation to their proportion of the population. Relative to where they were just thirty years before however, they had made tremendous progress and at the expense of the Coloreds and Africans. The relative openness of the class closure between them and the Colored elite had long pacified Africans, as an underclass: even those who could not enter the coloured ranks could still aspire to it. The openness of class position had kept the lower strata in line but all of that was now being challenged - the Indians were leapfrogging them to preempt the field. The greatest fear and resentment was being generated at the bottom.

The discovery that the Indians were mastering the very skills long associated with the upper class and in a manner more completely that themselves - compounded the indignities of the African slave heritage. The final insult was their elites advising them that they had to imitate the very qualities they had derided in the Indians, if they wanted to compete successfully. Their group worth, and consequently the individual's self worth, was threatened.

Compounding this psychological insecurity was the demographic factor and the implications for participating in and eventually controlling the government: by the nineteen-forties, the East Indians had a much greater birth rate than Africans and Coloureds. Combining their newly acquired skills with an imminent majority of voters, in a political arena to be governed by majoritarian rule and universal suffrage, it was quite conceivable very early on to both Indian and African thinkers that the Indians could deny the Africans control of the Government in perpetuity. This control was seen as an article of faith by the African-Coloured sections as their birthright, for all the reasons mentioned before.

This structural condition created what we have labeled "Ethnic Security Dilemmas" in the both the African and Indian sections. For the African section which feels that its is being bypassed by others who it had categorized as "backward" and that they may also be ruled by that group in perpetuity under the rules of the political game, the situation is untenable. Groups in this situation are overwhelmingly initiators of ethnic violence as they project their anxiety and insecurity onto the other groups who are seen as threats to their survival. From this perspective, the response of the African Guyanese is not cultural; the same response has been elicited in culturally dissimilar groups such as the Malays who are in a structurally similar position economically in Malaysian society. Thus, while Burnham and the C.I.A. might have midwifed ethnic conflict in Guyana during the sixties, they certainly did not create it. Any proposed solution to Guyana's problem must address this fundamental fear of the African Guyanese: the fear of being swamped and subordinated by the Indians who form a numerical majority.

The Indians and Amerindians, on the other hand, under the modern international norm of equality will assert their right to participate in the body politic in proportion to their share of the population and their contribution to the country. The Indians in particular, live under a Physical Security dilemma: even though as a majority they can assume executive office under majoritarian rules, they are physically always under threat because Africans control the state institutions, especially the army, the police and the civil service. Any proposed solution to Guyana's problems must also address this integral experience of Indian and Amerindian Guyanese, the experience of being excluded from the corridors of power, especially political power and living under physical fear of extermination.

Justice as Fairness
by Ravi Dev

Posted June 8th. 2005

This week, we continue our discussion of the framework necessary for any group or person to create a just state in Guyana. The philosopher Immanuel Kant succinctly posed the dilemma of organising a just state, two centuries ago, in these terms:

"The problem of organizing a state, however hard it may seem, can be solved, even for a race of devils, if only they are intelligent. The problem is, given a multitude of rational beings requiring universal laws for their preservation, but each of them is sincerely inclined to exempt himself from them, to establish a Constitution in such a way, although their private intentions conflict, they check each other, with the result that their public conduct is the same as if they had no such intentions."

In Guyana there exist (rightfully) great suspicions amongst the people as to the motives of those who propose "solutions" to our national problems. Throughout our history, institutions have been tinkered with, purportedly for the "good" of the people, but invariably it was later seen to have benefited either one person, or one group. We all want to exempt ourselves from the rules. Any initiative, or set of initiatives, that are offered to address Guyana's political crisis will have to engender the broadest possible acceptance across the political, ethnic and other divisions in the people and especially amongst the politicians. This implies that the various groups, as they define themselves, would have to agree on the proposals for establishing the institutions to govern them.

Kant proposed that the solution to the inevitable conflicts in organised human societies, lay in the design of institutions that should ensure the persons behaving in accordance with its rules, are behaving justly and morally. Most commentators who followed him agreed with his stricture that institutions constituting a state must be organised in accordance with the principle of justice, but his condition of the categorical imperative, proved nettlesome in practice. John Rawls, the most influential of modern liberal political philosophers, came up with another formulation to guide the formation of social institutions nearly two centuries later, in 1971. It had the great virtue of simplicity.

Agreeing with Kant, in the opening line of his first section in his magnum opus A Theory of Justice, Rawls boldly declared that the principle of "justice" is the standard that would generate the broad acceptability for the establishment of any institution necessary to implement any initiative for enduring stability: "Justice is the first virtue of social institutions, as truth is of systems of thought." If we recognise that Guyana does not even reach Rawls' definition of a society as "a cooperative venture for mutual advantage, it is typically marked by a conflict as well as by an identity of interests." his definition of "justice" is very pertinent to our effort to construct a democratic state in Guyana: "…a way of assigning rights and duties in the basic institutions of society and they define the appropriate distribution of the benefits and burdens of social cooperation."

More importantly, Rawls introduced a methodology for arriving at substantive principles for making decisions in divisive situations such as we have in Guyana, where it is vital that the decisions are seen as not favouring any one constituency. Procedurally, Rawls proposed that we make our suggestions about the fundamental principles that will structure and govern society, from behind a metaphorical "veil of ignorance" that precludes us from taking into consideration our personal position, class, gender, race, religion, even intelligence or interests in the matter under consideration. Ironically, for the thought-experiment to work, the politicians must most clearly be aware of the hopes, aspirations and fears of all the people.

This justice as fairness would provide the requisite objectivity and impartiality in judgment necessary to engender the requisite trust "since all are similarly situated and no one is able to design principles to favour his particular condition, the principles of justice are the result of a fair agreement or bargain." With such principles, we would be willing to go along even if our enemies assign us positions in the society arising out of the contract: we would not formulate, for instance, rules that would put minorities at a disadvantage since we could possibly be members of a minority group.

In Guyana we have to all appreciate that the existence of the state itself is for the furtherance of the societal good - the public interest. Ultimately all Guyanese are seeking cultural authenticity, political security and economic independence. In the furtherance of these "public goods", the people have to promulgate a constitution through which the government directs the state through policies and programs in consonance with the prime directives of the Constitution. In modern democracies, under the liberal paradigm, equality of treatment and equality before the law of the citizens stands at the very top of the imperatives

However, because each individual citizen or group of citizens are situated differently (according to specific criteria -class, ethnicity, gender etc.) governmental policies and programs will inevitably have a different impact on different citizens. For example, our tax laws are designed to extract a greater percentage of the income of the rich than the poor. While the rich may think that the law is discriminatory - they are not being treated equally - and it is, we accept it because we feel it is morally justified in furtherance of the societal good. And this is the ultimate test that is used in both ethical and legal theories to evaluate state activity affecting citizens in society - especially when it is claimed that a particular affects some citizens differently. The task of the Government is to ensure that their differential treatment is not arbitrary and capricious and irrational - and that they further some societal good. There should be a correlation between the classification and the purpose of the statute so that citizens can presume the impartiality of the legislators. Thus even those adversely impacted may consider it an acceptable cost of achieving a larger societal goal.

In Guyana a feeling of injustice is pervasive in all groups in the society as they struggle to live in dignity - especially within the political, economic and cultural spheres. The history of Guyana has demonstrated the importance of contexts in the introduction of institutions into society - whether these be in the political, economic or cultural spheres. The institutions will have to be seen as just. Rules that go against the values and morals of a people or lead to injustice, will be observed in the breach or not at all; the institution will at best be ignored or at worse lead to dysfunctional social behaviour.

While Rawls (and other theorists such as Marx) have proffered substantive principles of justice, for Guyana we must choose our own - based on our history and present realities - as our Marxist detour shoul have convinced us. Slavery and indentureship in colonialism have been the two historical forces that have had the greatest impact on our collective psyches and our disparate cultures, our economic poverty and our political impotence. Out of our experiences where they were denied, the values of liberty and equality are central to what we desire for the "good life". These values, we in ROAR believe, must be central to any institution that seeks to address any aspect of our national life.

FOR A JUST AND STABLE GUYANA
by Ravi Dev

Posted May 30th. 2005

Today, thirty-nine years after "Independence", few of us would say that our political leaders have fulfilled their promise of making our people, enslaved and indentured for all our history, really independent. ROAR has proposed that while we've had our share of "bad" men, our predicament has been exacerbated by our all-intrusive Ethnic Security Dilemmas. This week, we revisit a topic which needs to be relentlessly in front of us at all times -and especially in season of emergent political forces: exactly how do we build devise rules (institutions) to guide our political behaviour that address our security dilemmas, while ensuring that we remain free?

We have insisted that any political system we try to construct, ought to be built on a foundation of justice and held together with the cement of truth. We therefore turn to our realities in Guyana, where we are hoping by now that most would concede that we should aim for a multicultural (and thus multiethnic/multinational by our usage) society and polity striving to improve our welfare through the free enterprise system within a democratic state. While the particular stage of development of our macro-institutions will inevitably influence our efforts, there is no need to repeat the detours (and mistakes) of either Western or Eastern Europe. Just as in economic theory and practice we accept that we can utilise existing technologies to leapfrog development, why should we not do the same in political theory and practice? After all, are not "technologies" simply methodologies of doing things?

We should agree right up front that we Guyanese have to achieve some commonality of purpose, which would obviously assist to pull us through the inevitable bad patches. Many have misunderstood ROAR's stress on accommodation of differences as implying that we think that there is no need for unity. Nothing could be further from the truth. It is just that we had to swing the pendulum away from a foisted assimilationist vision of society that has left most of us futilely pursuing of an always-receding "white-determined" holy grail. We propose that a feeling of "we the people" - of "Guyaneseness" - can be engendered in the process of our conscious construction of a democratic state. We call this "Project Democracy" - the creation of conditions where we are all treated as one - equally - by the state. We propose democracy as our goal since the autonomous end of politics - the authoritative allocation of power - is the fundamental problematic of our polity. Our ethnic security dilemmas are a consequence of our fear of powerlessness under the present political system. Equality of opportunity; due process; justice and fair play and rule of law may seem dry compared to the warmth of the blood ties of "nation", but it can engender the unity of public purpose and the recognition of individual worth through common citizenship.

And what would provide the incentive for creating such a state? - the same incentives that spurred the development of every other democracy - crises and social conflicts. Once again, with the kidnapping of two innocent sugar-workers, the spectre of violence on the East Coast has reared its ugly head. Our present crisis has already precipitated a wide-ranging discourse as to what state structures may distribute power more equitably in Guyana. The broad interest expressed in a new political movement is indicative of our peoples' yearning for new approaches to our crisis. The test of our democratic system would be to successfully mediate the social conflicts in our society and achieve such goals as economic growth, material security, cultural autonomy and freedom from arbitrary violence.

Even as we agonize over our failure to improve our circumstances, we have overlooked the fact that not only "nation" but the "state" itself and the other mega-institutions are also variables and that they can each be modified to further our goal of deepening democracy in Guyana. Even in Britain, that gave us the concept of "undivided sovereignty", the state has been altered to give greater autonomy to the Scots, Irish and the Welsh. In multiethnic/multinational states the major precipitant to ethnic hostilities, whether in the developed or underdeveloped world, has been the real or perceived alienation of various ethnic groups from the power relations of the state. "Marginalisation!" is the cry all over the world. The question, we feel, which has to be answered is what state structure can provide the most incentives for politicians to equitably distribute power amongst the various groups in the polity? That is, we have to create the context for democracy to take root. Integrative federalist principles have informed most of the innovations across the world in multinational/ethnic states, which have been able to alleviate hostilities and further the democratic ideal. Executive power sharing has also been utilised in some divided polities but it appears that this is a transitory accommodation, and ROAR proposes this should be used for one or two terms as we build the trust to create more permanent arrangements.

Our cultural/national sphere would be demarcated as a private one, with minimal state intervention. Multiculturalism would be the order of the day. Amongst modern states, Canada seems to have hit a good note for us to emulate, with its stress on citizenship and multiculturalism and rejection of jingoism. We have an opportunity to close the gap between the "one-nation" model, which can lead to chauvinism, and hatred of the "other", and the "individualised" ideal, which spawns anomic, atomised, angst-filled souls. In our multicultural/multinational state, the acceptance that humans need to belong to a coherent "way of life" can be accommodated and balanced by the simultaneous necessity to learn about other cultures and possibilities. This provides the democratic imperative of choice in that it privileges no individual or group (such as Whites) as a "superior" standard for emulation.

In terms of institutions coordinating the activities of our citizens we will have to strike the balance amongst the roles of the state (coercion), market (competition) and community (cooperation). With our necessity to accommodate diversities, we see federalist, devolutionary principles informing our governmental structures - with a key role for the villages. A market oriented free enterprise system would allow us to plug directly into the global marketplace and be disciplined and toughened by international competition. Internally, of course, it would provide a locus of countervailing power to the always potentially predatory state.

In the weeks and months ahead we hope that there will the most widespread discussion amongst politicians as well as the citizenry on the rules of the game that will govern we, the people.

Rodney: On Organising
by Ravi Dev

Posted May 24th. 2005

From the beginning of its work in Guyanese society in 1988, the Jaguar Committee for Democracy -JCD and its successor ROAR located themselves in the Indian community and insisted that they speak as Indian Guyanese. This position has earned the ire of most political commentators even though we have, on umpteen occasions, explained the rationales for our stand. We want to revisit the issue, as another "first principle" because we believe that the socio-political conditions that demanded our approach still exist.

Back in 1998, during an exchange of letters in the press, we cited a 1970 quote from Dr. Walter Rodney that gave a remarkably similar rationale to our own for organising in specific ethnic communities. Elder Eusi Kwayana said at the time he was unaware of the quote. We were very pleased, therefore, that in the last week, both the SN and the KN published (as ads) a portion of the said quotation. In this critical moment just before the twenty-fifth commemoration of the assassination of one of the brightest light Guyana has ever produced, (and the launch of a much heralded "Third Force") we believe it would be very instructive for all of us to hear some more of what Dr. Rodney thought of how best to organise for change in a racially divided Guyana.

Dr. Rodney said, "Let us take the fact that, over the last decade, Indians and Africans, in Guyana, have been at one another's throats, for a variety of reasons, internal and external, and that there is a tremendous amount of ill-will and suspicion, on both sides; let us take that fact. Now some people deny this and talk about racial harmony, but it is not so. It may be submerged, but it is there; it has to be there: the system ensures that. But what can we do about it? I feel that there are at least two levels at which one must try to organise against the prevailing condition of racial antagonism.

One must organise within the African community, within the Indian community, too, to build different forms of consciousness, different types of social bases, which will ultimately be the form of a new State, and simultaneously, one must begin to find effective revolutionary integrative mechanisms, both organisational and ideological, in terms of people, purely and simply, people, you know, as contributors to the new concept of group consciousness, group power, as for example, like putting six persons. Three Africans, three Indians, not just in form of a symbolic show (they have, of course, to be ideologically consistent and so on), but putting them in a meaningful, nationally-powerful position of leadership, and as a unit.

Now, you have at the second level, to begin to indicate what you would like the society to be like, what that unit should be about, because, if you organise separately, this may well be construed by each group as something exclusive ands hostile. So, you have, at the same time, while doing that bringing together, which is historically necessary, to produce the integrative mechanisms, and act in the kind of fashion, and use the kind of language which makes it clear to the other group (let's say the African and the Indian are the main groups) what the national aims are, what the country's Socialism wants to achieve, in spite of race. We have a number of other people, including the Amerindians, the original inhabitants of the country, who are the most neglected. Our integrative mechanisms must be organised to include that group….(A)s we move towards Socialism, we'll also be, in the process, contributing to the total eradication of racism, in its most violent forms, a racism which has arisen through the slave trade, slavery, indenture, class and colonial oppression.

What we must try to understand (and this is a point I'm always trying to make very clearly) is that there is no contradiction between saying that, at this particular point in time, a man needs to assert his given identity, so that, at another point in time, he won't need to assert it. It would be taken for granted, the whole business of identity, because people will respect that fact, in the changed society, where race will have no marks of identification, whatsoever, on which anybody can lead for support, or for whatever. But it is a respect which no group has, at the moment, at the moment, in the present system, in Guyana.

And I think that within our community of Guyana, different ethnic groups need to assert their identity, need to put themselves together, to pull themselves together, and when they have and when they can operate on the basis of mutual respect, which they are not now doing, now, then I think the way will be clear for building a new society, a society of a mixed unit through Socialism. But, first, the various groups must be built up, made conscious of their own potential, their own dignity, their own power, as Guyanese." How much has since changed, from 1970, 1988 or 1998??

Of course the metanarrative of Marxism (and all one-shoe-fits-all approaches) have since been abandoned by most intellectuals (excepting the core of the PPP) and the question of the hegemonic constructions of identities have come to the fore. On the question of identity, we agreed with Dr. Rodney, who, unlike the vulgar Marxists did not reflexively dismiss race as "false consciousness". We disagreed with him, however, that Marxism was anymore free of racism than Liberalism. As products of the Enlightenment they were both complicit with the production of race and racism of the modern era -the racism arising with African slavery. These racist structures are deeply inscribed in most the ideas and practices of the world view that surrounds us - and while they affect most non-white peoples negatively - they are most extreme to African peoples. The descendants of African slaves especially, and Africans generally - should be very wary about those who would still blithely treat "race" as just another stratification or segregation. We continue to be amazed by African leaders who, in their rush to be under the "one-love-banner" imposed by the dominant paradigm, refuse to accept that the African condition is qualitatively different from that of other groups in the society and demands different programs.

Even more than any other group, Africans should refuse to accept that anyone who has not experienced what it is to be an African should speak for them. It is from that standpoint that ROAR at this time is honestly saying that it cannot speak for those whose experiences they have not lived. We have announced, however, from the moment we arrived in Guyana, that we are willing to work with anyone who could also state that they also work authentically within other communities. We are still so willing. We hope that there will be some dialogue on this most important issue - the approach to organising in present-day Guyana - as per the proposals put forward by Dr. Rodney and supported by ROAR.

Revisiting First Principles
by Ravi Dev

Posted May 20th. 2005

Several individuals, Peeping Tom included, have recently speculated or asserted that ROAR's support for a Centre Force/Third Force at this time indicates that we have given up on fundamental ideas that we have offered to address Guyana's ethnic security dilemmas - notably Integrative Federalism. Nothing could be further from the truth. The suspicions, however reveal a prime characteristic of politics in Guyana: politicians are expected to adopt an "all or nothing" posture in terms of their programs and ideas; do whatever it takes to obtain power, then impose their "vision" on the populace. ROAR's approach is different.

We believe than in a severely divided society like Guyana such an approach is bound to fail…as it has for the past half a century. In societies such as ours the prime prerequisite for new approaches to succeed is missing - no party has a broad enough support base to obtain the legitimacy necessary for the necessary radical programs to succeed. This would be true for almost any issue before the people - much less a whole new system of governance (not to mention a whole new political orientation) such as Integrative Federalism. So how does one proceed? Cautiously, we believe, by trying to build consensus rather than conflict.

In 1990 we outlined our approach in a paper called, "For a new political culture". The bottom line. we asserted, was that the old politics of "we" against "them" had to go. But how could we get to the politics of "us". First and foremost we declared, by not pretending that we were "us" at the present time; we have to work at it. To accept that we had inherited a state but not a nation. Has anything changed since then? Not much fundamentally, but at least the PPP has been given the opportunity to demonstrate whether their way could deliver an "us" with their ideas. I do not thing that anyone would doubt that we are very far from that happy state. Secondly, we said we had to conduct a dialogue in which we would place our fears and hopes on the table and work on building institutions that could address the identified fears and deliver the stated hopes. It would not move us forward if rather than "discussion and deliberation" we engaged in "polemics". I wrote:

The French post-modernist Michael Focault drew what he considered to be the "essential" distinction between entering discussion and engaging in polemic, which is very apropos to all of us at our historical moment. In "discussion" participants implicitly understand commitments entailed by "the acceptance of dialogue" and avail themselves only of rights that "are in some sense immanent" in the "dialogic situation" itself. In "polemic," by contrast, the intent is not merely "to wage war" but to regard "that struggle as a just undertaking." The polemicist proceeds unconstrained by mutual rights and commitments, and treats each interlocutor not as "a partner in search for truth, but an adversary, an enemy who is wrong."

It appears that Guyanese still expect us to engage in polemics. We have no wish to waste time at this time and go down that road.

In our paper we noted that political competitors would have to engage each other in dialogue on a sustained basis and we encouraged (and adumbrated several) structures that would sustain such dialogue. It was for this reason that we supported Dr. Jagan's call (from 1977) for a National Front Government and included the proposal in our paper. We felt than a NFG, for at least one or two terms would deliver the necessary conditions to engender and sustain deeper structural innovations such as Integrative Federalism, which was the main new structural mechanism we proposed. We supported the PPP at the 1992 elections because up to then Dr. Jagan was still espousing a NFG. We believe that the PPP squandered away a golden opportunity with its contrived "Civic" component that fooled no one then and still fools no one. We have since then consistently called for an NFG or Executive Power Sharing (even though we thought the latter title was ill advised) to generate a more accommodative environment for political activity in Guyana, into which new ideas such as integrative federalism would be given a fairer hearing.

Our espousal for a Centre Force after over a decade of PPP's rule arises with our recognition that the PPP's abandonment of Shared Governance in 1992 will not be reversed while it can terrorise and maintain its Indian support base with the PNC as a bogeyman/jumbie. So how do we convince the PPP and the PNC - who now both support radical decentralisation - to work together and so move to the next step of Integrative Federalism? In our estimation ROAR believes that the PPP and the PNC will not become obsolete with any wave of the wand - whether by a fairy Godfather or a Centre/Third Force. We am not sure they need to be obsolete…what is needed is a recognition that they have to work together. Whatever the PNC's motives, the PPP cannot ignore the former's call for Shared Governance, reissued just this morning, while our country cannot even attract investment to generate a one-percent economic growth rate. A sustained rate of at least ten percent is necessary for us to make any significant impact in reducing poverty in our lifetime. What's the rationale for the rejection? How can Shared Governance not help Guyana at this time?

In working to build a Centre/Third force it gets the opportunity to expose its ideas to these formations. This is how consensus is built - slowly, but slowly. A Centre Force, we expect, by denying both the PPP and the PNC a majority in Parliament can persuade both of them to work together on a national program since the constitution of our country demands a majority vote to even spend a penny. The "persuasion" would come out of their own self interest…and the Centre Force's role would be to insist that the deliberations are characterised as "dialogues" rather than "polemics" as is the norm in Parliament. And so take the dialogue beyond the day to day exigencies to necessary fundamental structural changes in governance structures to deliver justice for all.

Many have scoffed at the seeming idealism of this approach - questioning whether prospective members of the Centre will not be seduced into office - and securing either the PPP or the PNC into power. With the history of politics in our country - stretching from Mr. Burnham achieving a PNC majority in Parliament by inveigling crossings of the floor from both the PPP and UF in the sixties to the present PPP and the UF - this is not an idle speculation. Ultimately we will have to depend on the integrity of the individuals - or having them sign blank resignation letters ahead of time! Tom, at the opposite end of the spectrum, sees it as a naked grab for power.

Tom would know, as the above-mentioned Foucault has taught us, that all relationships - and for sure political relationships - are ultimately power relationships. The question of course is what is the participants' conception of the use of power. The Centre Force, in the view of ROAR is to use its power to insist that all the representatives of the people in the Parliament, in the words of our National Pledge, "dedicate (their) energies towards the happiness and prosperity of Guyana." While we believe that Integrative Federalism, as a philosophy and a form of governance, will best deliver those goals…we have to use all opportunities to build a consensus on it or it will never become a liberating construct. We cannot separate means and ends.

Arrival/A rival
by Ravi Dev

Posted May 8th. 2005

As I write this article, the sky is quite overcast…after some heavy downpours during the night. My children are praying rather fervently (unprompted even!) that the weather will hold up for the rest of the day. It's not that they're unmoved by the sight of new flooding on the East Coast (via CNS) but at nine and five, they are more moved by their desire to dress up and enjoy themselves. They so want to get to the GIHA "Knockout" Mela, which had been cancelled from the original Indian Arrival Day of May 5th. To echo my daughter, I too hope that there will be no more "blessings" from on high today. There are so many people who I am sure worked very hard - with no pay - to be once again frustrated…not to mention the money invested.

Spared any rain, the IAC's Arrival Mela - both in Georgetown and in Berbice were very successful. The PPP must be pleased. The IAC, we all know, was formed by the PPP to counter the GIHA event, which had been pulling huge crowds of Indians ever since they started some six years ago. The PPP could never accept a group outside its control working in the Indian community. Especially if the group in question had ideas of its own. And GIHA certainly had ideas - along with a dynamic woman leader in Rhyaan Shah, to boot. The IAC, we've seen by now, is sadly bereft of new ideas and Evan Persaud, even with the shawl he chose to wear this year, is no match for Ms. Shah. Amiable fellow that he is, he would readily concede this.

This PPP's drive to seek total control over the Indians of Guyana is nothing new…in fact it goes back to the formative years of the party. The PPP has from that time sought to control its Indian base so as to further its own, "Marxist" definition of what was needed for them and the country. In the 1953 elections, Dr. Jagan had deliberately set out to destroy Dr. Jang Bahadur Singh who was a leader of the British Guiana East Indian Association (BGEIA) and the Maha Sabha. When the Jagans had returned to Guyana, Dr. Singh had welcomed them into the BGEIA and published their articles in their organ, the Indian Opinion.

After Mr. Burnham split from the PPP in 1955, Dr. Jagan made a candid assessment of his position and what he intended to do about it. According to Dr. Jagan "the split took place along racial and ideological lines, predominantly along the former [race]. Generally the mass of Indians came over to us, the majority of Africans, with the exception of the class conscious and politically aware, went over to Burnham." Since the PPP, by Dr. Jagan's analysis, was now left with primarily Indians as its mass-base, it was crucial, he proposed, to redefine the Party's relationship with "Indian capitalists" who had shown that they were willing to sacrifice their class interests in favour of their ethnic solidarity. Dr. Jagan could not have been too unhappy with the fact that the two top Indian leaders in the PPP - Jainarine Singh and Dr. JB Latchmansingh (who were senior to him in the struggle) left with Mr. Burnham. He was now the undisputed Indian leader. Indians were now supposed to have arrived and Dr. Jagan would brook no rivals. However, that from that point on, the PPP has been stuck into what has become its historic quandary - a leftist-led party with an ethnic Indian mass-support, who were at odds with the ideology of the leadership.

It resolved any ambiguities in demanding than in any venture, the leftist goals of the party were to take priority…while the Indians were to be kept in line with the threat of the big, bad African PNC, which Mr. Burnham sadly didn't do much to dispel. Any group whether Indian or otherwise were forbidden to work in the Indian community. Those who persisted were even greater enemies than the PNC…they were defined as betrayers and they and their organizations were to be dealt with condignly. The GAWU replaced Dr. JP Latchmansingh's GIWU…and today the GAWU puts the interest of the PPP in government ahead of the sugar workers. When ROAR assisted in the formation of the GSWU in 2000, the PPP used its administrative power to stymie the challenge even though the GSWU had collected 5600 signatures of sugar workers. A rival was forbidden.

Ironically, this week's Mirror has a history article praising Balram Singh Rai's efforts in Parliament to end dual control (Christian Church and government) of schools and so stem the forced conversions of Indians to become teachers. After Mr. Rai was expelled from the party because Mrs. Jagan concluded that he was a threat to Dr. Jagan, he became a defined enemy for whom the party would not even intervene (upon Mr. Rai's entreaty) to secure a parliamentary pension to acknowledge his role in parliament. Mr. Brindley Benn, however, who left thePPP, formed his own party, ridiculed Dr. Jagan, was rewarded in 1992 with a diplomatic posting to Canada. A rival who is Indian is beyond the pale.

The Rice Producer's Association (RPA) is another PPP front organisation that puts the interests of its primarily Indian membership behind the PPP's. When farmers in Essequibo dared to challenge the RPA and formed the Essequibo Paddy Producer's Association (EPPA) the PPP threw all the leaders out of the PPP and hauled them to Freedom House where they were told by Mrs. Jagan that they were "ungrateful dogs". These rice farmers who had stood behind and supported the PPP through all the dark years were the ungrateful ones!!! A rival is a dog. President Jagdeo's indecent attacks on the integrity of Swami Aksharananda, of course, is to help buttress its Hindu stalking horse, the Dharmic Sabha of Pandit Reepu Daman Persaud. A rival Swami cannot be a real Swami.

ROAR, of course, has come in for its own share of denunciation from the PPP…we were daring to challenge them openly in "their" seemingly mortgaged property - the Indians. At a press conference in 2001, we detailed nineteen specific acts by the PPP against ROAR and its members. Not to mention, of course, the infamous 2000 "cuss down" that President Jagdeo, ex-president Janet Jagan. General Secretary Donald Ramotar and other leading executives of the PPP conducted in front of my home, while I was out of the country. A rival party of Indians were "worms" (President Jagdeo) and "neemakharams" (Ramotar) who must be crushed.

The irony is, from an Indian perspective, there is nothing wrong in rivalry. Since no one person or organisation can possess the totality of truths, different perspectives are to be encouraged to present the widest perspective to the people who ultimately will be responsible for their actions. But then the PPP has never claimed to have an Indian perspective, has it? As a Leninist party it does see itself as having a monopoly of "truth". They therefore, see a rival as a threat to its existence. Consequently, with its reflexive actions to crush new voices in the Indian community they have kept that community in a grave state of underdevelopment - politically, socially, economically and culturally. Rather than seeing the community as a banyan tree that allows each branch to have independent roots, the PPP acts as a parasitic vine that seeks to entwine the entire community in its coils. Such a community will stultify and eventually perish. Unless Indians demand their own voices, there will not be a rival to that arrival.

Death Squads 2
by Ravi Dev

Posted April 25th. 2005

Well, the other foot has dropped. The "Death Squad Commission" has made its inevitable exoneration on the narrowly drawn issue of Mr Gajraj's involvement in the said squads. The entire Cabinet (not just the President, who actually has the responsibility) has responded reinstating him as Minister of Home Affairs. To offer a background on ROAR's position that Mr. Gajraj ought not to be reinstated, we republish my article from January last year, before the Commission was set up.

"The allegations by George Bacchus that the Minister of Home Affairs Ronald Gajraj is implicated in the operations of a "Death Squad" has brought us in Guyana to another critical juncture in the development (or death) of our State. The need for us to have a state that serves the interests of all Guyanese, to be beholden to no partisan interest, to be staffed by Guyanese who see themselves as a "Universal Class" is a point that ROAR has been pushing from our inception. It's a point that doesn't seem to be appreciated by the PPP and the PNC - and to be frank - apparently by most Guyanese. Guyanese have stood by and seen those who control the state use the organs of the state and extra-state organisations to pursue narrow partisan interests for so long that apparently they feel this is the way things ought to be. "It's our turn to do what we want to do," seems to be the dominant (and nihilistic) sentiment, in each of the two major ethnic groups.

'60's Death Squad

This is a fatal mistake. If we cannot wake up to the absolute necessity for a neutral state, then we'd better pack up our bags and all leave. The Guyanese state was launched at Independence after massive ethnic violence wrought by Death Squads formed by both the PNC and PPP between 1962-64. The PNC received massive covert support from elements of the Police and Volunteer Forces in that pre-independence struggle and it set a precedent for using those forces for partisan interests. We didn't seem to have learnt our lesson. Between 1964 and 1992 it has been well documented by numerous credible sources (notably by Professor Ken Danns in his book, "Power and Domination in Guyana") that the Security Forces more or less became arms of the PNC. There were also outside forces such as the House of Israel and the Kick-down-the-door bandits that were used by the PNC to keep opposition forces cowed. Let us not forget that Dr. Walter Rodney, by all accounts, was assassinated by a member of the Guyana Defence Force. We still didn't learn our lesson.

So today we have the PPP accused of creating its own Death Squad to go after individuals fingered as "criminals". The reports contend that many of these "criminals" were tortured before being killed. ROAR's position, expressed over a week ago, was that the Minister of Home Affairs should recuse himself while an independent Inquiry is conducted into the allegations. We have the word of the Minister that he had conversations with several individuals now charged with the murder of Bacchus' brother. The question arises as to why would the Minister, in charge of the Security Forces of the country, resort to dealing with individuals, each of whom had brushes with the law?

Ethnic Insecurities

One explanation, in fact, harks back to the fundamental reason for the political impasse in Guyana - ethnic insecurities. The PPP is a party with deep historical memories. The role of the Disciplined Forces personnel on behalf on the PNC, before and after Independence, could not be brushed aside. The PPP did not have faith on the Disciplined forces to act professionally, from the moment they took office in 1992. However, rather than doing the right thing and work to install that professionalism at all cost into those Forces, the PPP pretended that everything was hunky dory and that there were no changes necessary. The irony was that those Forces themselves expected that changes were necessary to return their professionalism after the excesses of the PNC's regime.

The main reason that the PPP did not act was that they did not have the courage to accept that the fundamental factor underlying Guyana's politics was race. The Forces' lack of professionalism was underscored by the fact that the PNC had exacerbated the British divide and rule policy by not only increasing the dominance of its African support base within the Forces but also exponentially increasing their numbers. In an article in 1993, The Anatomy of Power in Guyana, I pointed out the need to reform the Forces among other institutions. Later that same year I predicted that there would be anti-Indian violence. At the time, my old buddy Freddy criticised me for making this prediction.

On January 12th 1998, when anti-Indian violence did break out - the PPP was caught with their pants down in terms of providing protection for their supporters. Shown that the Emperor PPP had no clothes, it was not surprising that the violence against Indians intensified. During 1998, dozens of Indians, primarily businessmen, were murdered. In fact ROAR was launched on Jan 17th 1999 at a rally against crime where it issued a detailed proposal for the reform and professionalisation of the Forces. I pointed out then that Africans who were silent about the lack of effort of the Force to apprehend the murderers were "creating a Frankestein that would come back to haunt them." The PPP lambasted ROAR, deeming us "racists" and reiterated their support for the Forces.

It is apparent now that the PPP, after refusing to professionalise the state institution that was legally responsible for dealing with security - the Police Force - turned to elements of the Black Clothes to take on those who were preying on Indians. We argued at the time that this approach would backfire. Lo and behold, we witnessed the inevitable excesses of the squad and their dismemberment by their opponents - especially after the infamous 2002 Mash jailbreak. By now the political-criminal enterprise had become enmeshed with drug elements and we witnessed two responses - both outside the official State avenue - on which everyone seemed to have given up. These were the "Phantom Squad", apparently sponsored by businessmen who had faced the brunt of the attacks, and a "Death Squad" that had an official, if illegal, imprimature.

It is this latter group that appears to have been fingered and for which Minister Gajraj is being blamed. ROAR's contention is that while the depredations against the innocent, especially as we witnessed last year against Indians on the East Coast, had to be dealt with, it serves none of us, even Indians, for that exigency to be handled outside the official State apparatus. This will inevitably come back to haunt all of us.

The way only forward is to conduct an official Inquiry into the allegations before us and simultaneously professionalise our Disciplined Forces as ROAR has been demanding since its formation. We propose a panel of three ex-Chancellors, who are fortunately still around, for the former task. We fortunately have a Disciplined Forces Commission already functioning, to help us with the latter."

Between the (Third force) Lines
by Ravi Dev

Posted April 17th. 2005

In his riposte to my latest ruminations on the Centre/Third Force, Peeping Tom advised that I "read between the lines" in Freddy Kisoon's espousal of the said Force. (The King Maker, Uncle Ravi and the third force). Tom believes that "Freddy does not want ethnic rights activists in his Third force…There will be no place for Uncle Ravi in Uncle Freddy's Third Force." I think Tom has a point. And it's not only Freddy who feels that way: so do many (if not most) of the erstwhile leaders who I have been mentioning as possible participants in the Centre Force. So why do I proceed (Tom may say "quixotically") along the Centre /Third Force path? It is precisely because Freddy and so many of the opinion-shapers of Guyana feel the way they do about "ethnic" representatives.

The truth is that most of these folks - there'll always be a few hard-line recalcitrants - are not seeking to exclude people like myself because of malice or hatred. They sincerely believe that the politics that I espouse are at a minimum, "just not right" for Guyana. To these good folks, the "right politics" means that leaders must each, in their own person, represent all persons - all "Guyanese". This is "real multi-ethnic" politics. I was referring to this perspective when I discussed the "representation of ideas" - individuals acting as agents for the interests of a group, and who therefore can come from outside the group, as apposed to "representation by presence", which proposes that for groups that were excluded from the authoritative power relations of the society, they need to be physically there - to represent their truths.

Politics

The problem with the former approach, I have been pointing out, are myriad - not least being that very few have chosen the enlightened platonic guardian-representatives when it came to voting for them at elections in Guyana. And if we are engaged in politics, as Tom has been belabouring recently, this is the litmus test. We cannot ask to be judged by good intentions but by performance. Freddy himself had challenged my "representation-by-presence" views prior to the 1992 elections, when we predicted that the WPA, with its "representation by ideas" vision of multi-racial politics, would be crushed. We found no satisfaction when our prediction was proven correct but hoped that out of the reality check of October 5th, grounded individuals would look at other models for ensuring "multi-racial" justice in Guyana.

Freddy recently claimed that, "At present, "(Dev's) thesis of the ethnic security dilemma is fair argument for both sides - the Indians and Africans. This is what I mean by the softening of his original self." (Guyanese Indian extremists preparing. KN 2-20-05) But Freddy would know that I have always publicly advocated this position and at least since 1990 in the Stabroek News when he also had a column there. There remains a refusal to accept that an "ethnic" representative could have a "national" perspective. To repeat my premise: there needs to be an acknowledgement that the overwhelming acceptance by the people of ethnic mobilisation may reveal real, valid and rational interests. People are not all sheep who are in a miasma of "false consciousness".

Black Power

My proposal that we openly start from where we are- ethnically self-defined - to create together a "we" and a Guyana for all, sounds crass to the proponents of representation by ideas for another reason apart from its empirical rejection here - ideology. These citizens are, after all, products of the Enlightenment. Modern Guyanese politics was defined by three strands of ideologies: anti-colonialism, Marxism and finally Black Power. The first two demanded an "all-a-we is one" position in which any one could represent all. (Mr. Eusi Kwayana was expelled from the PNC in 1962, let us recall, for daring to doubt that African interests would best be served with an independent Guyana under Dr. Cheddi Jagan.) With Black Power, some, like Rodney in Grounding with my Brothers sought to stretch it on the Procrustean bed of Marxism, to fit our multi-racial reality. I was a High School student who witnessed that only Eusi Kwayana remained at the visiting Stokely Carmichael's side when he (Carmichael) dare suggest in 1970, that Africans had some unique problems to resolve because of their history, and that maybe Black Power may be for only them.

The wide acceptance of the premises of Black Power in Guyana and the Caribbean, however, meant that from the seventies activists were not uncomfortable to acknowledge what they defined as the "cultural question' for Africans. Never having benefit of an Indian perspective on the cultural question (Jagan subverted and destroyed the Indian cultural leadership in Guyana; Bhadase took a different tack in Trinidad) there is a premise still inheres in these good folks that to say you are an "Indian" is to be ipso facto communal, backward and "extremist". To be "African", while not encouraged, does not raise the same level of disapproval. Apart from Dr. Rodney's integrity, the ideological familiarity with Black Power played a role in this.

As an outsider to the WPA, and being abroad to boot, I must say that I took the "multi-culturalists" refusal to deal with Indian cultural issues as hypocrisy on the part of the WPA leadership since they defined the party (as Freddy still did as recently as 4-4-05 "Today is Eusi Kwayana's birthday) as the merging of Eusi Kwayana's "Africanist organisation ASCRIA, with an Indian group, IPRA (Indian Political Revolutionary Association) led by Moses Bhagwan. It wasn't until the after the riots of 1998, after my stance on the riots gave me a certain notoriety, that I found out from Moses Bhagwan that the name of his grouping was deliberate: he believed that Indians were oppressed politically not culturally, unlike Africans who were doubly oppressed.

I understood then that what I had defined as the African "dominant tendency" of the WPA was not necessarily a conspiracy of the African leadership but as much as the refusal of its Indian leadership to acknowledge that the Indians in Guyana may also have been culturally hegemonised, albeit differently from the African but no less effectively. My understanding came out of a committed engagement with the leaders of the WPA in several fora. It is this self-truth that impels me to keep up, and even widen, the engagement with others like Freddy, who may not concede the legitimacy of Indian representing themselves by their presence in Guyana today. I do believe that Freddy and friends have the interests of all Guyana at heart (even though they may display some smugness of moral superiority on occasions) and it is only through working together, they may see that to be Indian is not to be anti- African . Or vice-versa.

Empathy

For what it is worth I would like to share an anecdote with Tom and Freddy. During the discussions between the Parliamentary Opposition parties to arrive at a joint position on the Death Squad issue so as to communicate with the UN Secretary General, it was Dr. Clive Thomas (who has been criticised for taking an "African" position recently) who first proposed that the East Coast violence with its epi-centre at Buxton be part of the Terms of Reference of any proposed Commission of Inquiry. We also must acknowledge, that the PNC fully agreed with the wider TOR. (As an aside, today, even as the PPP has reinstated Mr. Gajraj and Indians have forgotten Pres. Jagdeo's promise to Inquire into the wider violence "later", are they are sleeping easier? Or are they waiting for the fire next time?)

So Tom, I read between the lines, as you advised, but will still lend my shoulder to efforts to make the Centre Force a reality. After all, it may be my last chance to persuade Freddy and friends that "Indian" doesn't automatically equal "extremist". And that Indians too, must have a place in the Guyanese mosaic -by their physical presence. .

Tom and Freddy (and Third Force)
by Ravi Dev

Posted April 13th. 2005

I have said it before and I'll say it again: Peeping Tom has his fingers on the pulse of the people…especially Indian people. So whenever Tom talks about what the people may or may not do, I listen up good. A week or so ago, Tom accused Freddy of "trying to revive the dead…(in trying to)…promote a Third Force in Guyana." (The Third Force -3-31-05). I found the rationale that Tom gave for his assertion interesting: Citing Newton's third law of motion (action and reaction are equal and opposite) Tom asserted: "Thus, for all of those who are trying to deny the PPP a majority through a TF (Third Force) or CF (Centre Force) there will be an equal and opposite backlash, whereby the electorate will decide that they do not wish to have this in country a ruling party with a minority in parliament."

One of my problems with Tom's formulation is that by equating ("Thus") a phenomena from the inanimate world of physics with one from the animate field of psychology seem he gives the latter an inevitability that misses the role of human agency. People are qualitatively different from marbles. Tom, of course, is in rarefied company with this fallacy: the great man Marx himself committed this faux pas. In throwing out the baby with the bathwater, Marx missed Hegel's insight that natural phenomena ("events) are different from human phenomena ("actions") because of the intervention of consciousness in the latter phenomena. Humans are not little balls through which "forces" act to keep them in motion or not. Human consciousness introduces the possibility of change from what may be the "norm" as humans reflect, are influenced or are coerced etc. The dialectic is driven only by consciousness.

In the context of which we are speaking - the possibility of the Third Force - there are two separate but related issues which both depend on the variable of human consciousness: one, whether a credible such force can be brought together and two, whether it can be effective in garnering votes. There is no inevitability about either. Tom was pronouncing on the second issue. Now Tom may be quite right in his conclusions that the electorate will reject the Third Force but it will not be due to any mysterious "forces" but rather primarily on the first issue: Will there be a credible Third or Centre Force? This depends on human will. Tom himself accepts that the Centre/Third Force simply needs to deny both the PPP and PNC a majority. Does Tom really believe that a Confederation of GAP, WPA, ROAR, Ramjattan/Trotman grouping, Joey Jagan's Unity Party, Sharma's JFAP together with other leaders the grouping would not be able to accomplish the task? All we're talking about is another three or four percent above the present configuration?

I therefore do not believe that, as Tom puts it, "the next election is going to be about one man…Bharrat Jagdeo." It's going to be whether the principals in the abovementioned groupings can rise to the need of the moment and work on a common program for Guyana. The issue would then be not whether the PPP or PNC forms the Government but that either of them would have to negotiate with the Third/Centre Force on the basis of what's good for all of Guyana.

I disagree with Tom when he says in the negative that the people would not want a "minority" government. I believe that the people - all the Guyanese people - after twenty-eight years of the PNC and twelve years of the PPP that the people want effective government. True, as Tom says, we have the "ethnic combustible" but the Third/Centre Force addresses precisely that more effectively than any other arrangement. All the representatives of all the groupings in Guyana will have the opportunity to influence decision-making.

And this brings me to Tom's contention that "Ravi Dev's Third Force …is in total contradiction to his formula…to deal with the effects of the ethnic security dilemmas." I don't think so. I agree with the old saw that politics is the art of the possible…especially in the short term. Federalism will come. Everyone has accepted the principle of "decentralisation…we have to work concretely with others to show them that in its Federal implementation there is no nefarious Indian agenda to partition Guyana. But rather it will further the interests of all Guyanese. This trust can only come as we work closer with other groups. In the meantime, we would note that the Indian Ethnic Security Dilemma has already been addressed by the recommendations of the Disciplined Forces Commission. Which Commission, we should remember, was occasioned by the demands of the PNC not the PPP - even though the stipulation on addressing the imbalance in the Disciplined Forces was inserted into the Constitution since 2000. The PPP has since displayed a noted reluctance to implement the recommendations. That brings us to the African Ethnic Security Dilemma.

I know that Tom cannot believe that this dilemma will be addressed by the presence of Dr.Jeffrey and Mr. Lumumba (no matter how many footballs the latter gives away and I have been reliably informed that the good Mr. Samuel Hinds will be accepting a foreign posting in the tradition of Sirs John Carter and Lionel Luckhoo.) After the 1998 riots, I wrote in An Aetiology of an Ethnic Riot : "By the early 1960's Burnham, as the leader of a "dominated" group, had three strategies he could have used, either singly or in combination, to obtain or share power. Firstly, he could have used coercion (riots and revolt), utilitarian trade (bargaining votes for favours etc,) or normative devices (persuading the P.P.P. to observe its own rules so as not to exclude African Guyanese). Burnham chose riots and revolt."

The point is, Tom , we cannot simply focus on who will succeed Jagdeo in 2001 within the PPP, as you advise - it is not in the interest of any Guyanese, much less Indians. (Why didn't you mention my favourite Moses Nagamootoo? Or do you accept Freddy's thesis that he will be totally emasculated by then? And by Lambada - of all the mediocrities?) Since we have seen that the PPP is totally unwilling to bargain with the PNC (Jagdeo repeated this only last week.) and the PPP has proven that it is only interested in ethnic tokenism (a la Burnham) don't we strengthen the hands of those inside the African community who will see no other option but riots and revolt?

The Politics of Presence
by Ravi Dev

Posted March 27th. 2005

Earlier this month I attended a meeting , organised by Red Thread, of women who came together -as women - to share their experiences of the flood. Now, some may say that the flood affected everyone in the communities from where the women came, so why the need for a "women's" view? But no one who attended that gathering would not have ventured that question. After listening to those voices it was obvious that no male could have related what those women experienced. The women - as women- brought a distinctive and unique perspective to an event that yes, did affect all. I am sure that men also felt responsible for their children - but not to the same overwhelming depth as these women. I am sure that men felt responsible for feeding their families - but not with the particular desperation and intensity of these women. I could go on and on, but the point I am making is that it needed the presence of these women to share their experiences and so, increase our own appreciation and understanding of what the floods meant to our people. This is what the politics of presence is all about.

All around us we see the demand for representation by presence. Women across the world have led this struggle in the modern era. In our own Guyana, it is now the law of the land that thirty percent of the members of parliament must be women. This is an open acknowledgement that women must represent their views by their presence. The recent questioning of the composition of the Executive of the Ethnic Relations Commission and the judges on the Caribbean Court of Justice are only the most recent expression of this phenomenon. The irony that our rejection of the British Privy Council is in itself an affirmation of representation by presence has evidently been completely lost on the naysayers. The most contentious area in Guyana, of course, is that ethnic perspectives and interests must also be represented by the "presence" of the said ethnic members.

My own efforts in this area - to suggest that we openly talk about and deal with ethnic interests in ways that include the politics of presence - have received quite a hostile reception, to say the least. Some say that such talk is "divisive". Never mind that even without "such talk", an even more virulent and divisive "talk" goes on under the bottom-houses - especially by the very complaining forces. But those who complain of the open articulation and representation of ethnic interests are being disingenuous. They do not mention that, to our credit, we recognise the interests of one such ethnic group - our Amerindian brothers and sisters - and enshrine them in our Constitution. The sky hasn't fallen down because of that recognition. They do not complain because they paternalistically view the Amerindians as wards, and not as full citizens, who they can manipulate. They are not so sanguine about Africans and Indians

One more trenchant criticism is that while acknowledging that there may be ethnic perspectives and interests, some hold that these don't have be represented by the actual presence of the particular ethnics. This position - the representation of ideas - that once the interests of a group are enumerated anyone can then represent them. The representative "acts" for the group as their agent. This of course was what the Europeans said of the various natives they encountered during their noble venture to spread their civilisation. They could represent slaves, for instance, since they (the Europeans) knew what was in the best interests of the slaves. Many men still don't see why all the fuss for women to represent their interests by their own presence. Male eyes - from both sides of our House of Assembly - roll with an intriguing synchronicity when one or the other female member - from either side of the House - happen to interject a "female" perspective into the august deliberations. Such as the unreasonable demand that our Constitution be made gender neutral.

Marxists are in the forefront in their rejection of the politics of presence. After all, how else could they justify having a bunch of "intellectuals" who never worked a day, representing the "working" class. They had to insist that once "the interests" of the workers were stated, anyone could represent them. But the Marxists' own experience in that form of representation showed the weaknesses of that position - not the least being that the working class who were supposed to rule never themselves got a shot at holding the sceptre. They had to continue with the heroic task of working. When a group has been systematically excluded from representing themselves - the very act of representation served at the very minimum, to lift up that group by demonstrating to them that their voices and concerns have value. Their presence also serves to inhibit the others from continuing with acts or speech that put them down and were part and parcel of their oppression. It had to have inhibited the planters somewhat in denigrating Africans and Coloureds when these groups began to enter the Combined Court back in the nineteenth century.

The bottom line is that even if the representatives of a group are quite serious about representing that group, but are not members of that group, it not only signals the exclusion of that group, but certifies that something vital is lost. That "something" is the lived experience of the group - the hopes, aspirations, fears - in a word, their perspective. This is not to say that there is no value in the representation of "ideas" for a group. Some representation is better than nothing. In like vein, it is not to say that the presence of members of a group guarantees their proper representation. We Guyanese are only too familiar with tokenism - be it ethnic or gender. We have to combine the "ideas" of the group with the presence of the group. Especially when there had been systematically exclusion.

The proliferation of the "politics of presence" is a manifestation of the growing acceptance of diversities within societies. Some therefore oppose such politics by invoking a "slippery slope". They complain, "Where will it all end?" Again in this we hear the echoes of our colonial past: Are we going to give up rule of the Empire to savage Mau Maus and naked fakirs? And today: are we going to be ruled by women? The horror! The rejection of the representation by presence always betrays the fear that like infants, imbeciles and cattle, the group is not quite competent to represent themselves. And we return to the Marxist and other such like minded theories that individuals may not be competent to even see their own interests - they suffer from false consciousness and other such maladies - and must therefore be represented by their betters.

We have allowed others to speak for us during our entire history. Isn't it time we speak for ourselves? To each other? About what kind of Guyana we want? That's the forum ROAR hopes a Center Force can provide.

Govt's role in growth
by Ravi Dev

Posted March 14th. 2005

"After my budget presentation below, it is ironic that the IMF yesterday criticised the govt for not "boosting"growth while cautioning that the govt must stay the IMF course."

Growth Examples

We have to look at how others were able to create investment opportunities starting with even greater constraints than us, and how these were realised in a sustainable manner. Let theory be guided by successful practice. The history of the world after World War II has demonstrated that the countries that were able to pull themselves out of the poverty trap - Hong Kong, Singapore, Taiwan, South Korea and then later Malaysia etc. all followed the example of Japan in that the State was integrally involved in formulating and executing explicit industrial policies. Stanley Ming spoke about the success of Singapore. The central linchpin of Singapore's success lay in Lee Kuan Yew's articulation of a clear strategy for development in which his Government played the key role. He enumerated the constraints, identified the opportunities and methodically set about removing the constraints achieve the identified opportunities one after the other. The people of Singapore were willing to accept near-term deprivations because they could see the vision slowly becoming reality.

On the other hand, no one in Guyana has any faith in this Government's grandiose plans…because every year, all we hear are "buzzwords". Don't we all remember the hullabaloo over "I.T." two or three years ago? Now its raw materials such as bauxite to fee the Chinese behemoth: well, China has been growing for two decades…where was the focused strategy to supply raw materials. Only last year we were writing off the bauxite industry. What about being the "gateway to South America" when the PM claims that we can't have a deep-water harbour until we have massive exports? Even my Nanie knew when to build a latrine! We note that strategic infrastructural structures for generating growth are frowned upon by the IFI's, and the PPP meekly acquiesces - excepting when it comes to bread-and-circus items like the cricket stadium.

I know that we in Guyana, have had a disastrous experience with state involvement in development but let us not throw out the baby with the bath water. (And let's not forget that the IFI's were just as complicit in the fiasco because they had to launder OPEC oil money. Not all state actions are negative and in fact there may be the necessity for government interventions when the free market is stymied for one reason or other (market failure). And if we don't have market failure here, we certainly have market constipation. We need only to look at our banks being awash with money and yet have no investments (the liquidity problem I discussed, and our PM bemoaned, earlier).

After our experience, we agree that the State has to be transformed into one that is as small as possible but at the same time we have to insist that it should be as large as necessary to ensure that we move ourselves out of poverty in as short a time as possible. Our development plans were driven by State ownership of production (State Capitalism) which destroyed the market forces necessary for competition and other disciplines necessary for sustainable growth. The socialist dogmas undergirding the then development policies were inimical to the free market and spawned a culture of special interests seeking to benefit from the state policies (rent seeking). Yes, we should learn from our experience as to the downside risks of a large governmental role in industrial policy and act to minimise those risks, but we must not ignore the fact that no country in the modern era has risen out of poverty on loans from World Bank/IMF and without strong Government intervention.

Awash in money

The Prime Minister at least elaborated on the Finance minister's bald statement of our "liquidity" problem. Alluding to the fact that even after the Government has sterilised some $50 billion dollars (and paying some $2 billion annually for the privilege) the banking sector was still awash in cash, the PM complained that "we're saving but not investing". Yet he saw the Government's role to stimulate investment as only building infrastructure. What has the Government done to make the "local investors" he called upon to invest, want to suddenly jump in. What have they done to force the Banks to lend investors at reasonable rates? They actually made the safe-haven of T-Bills even more attractive to banks by raising the interest rate during 2004.

Catalytic State

ROAR has called for the creation of what has been labelled a "Catalytic Entrepreneurial State" (CES). Such a state will firstly have to be a responsible state, with a strong demonstrated commitment to private sector development . The Government has to be willing to let Guyanese become wealthy. The Government will obtain the money for any perceived or real inequities from taxes. The rising tide will raise all ships. The Government's relationship with the Public Service is another area of grave concern in the formation of a CES. In whatever endeavour the State engages, much depends on the professionalism of the Civil Servants for the success of that endeavour. We have recently heard much about reform of the Civil Service - but the Government has not been clear in what context such reforms will take place. If, for instance, we envisage a CES, then we may not have to downsize our Civil Service but rather raise the salary scales and train the employees to perform their new developmental tasks. In Singapore, the Government insisted that Civil Servants' salaries be on par with their counterparts in the private sector. In Guyana, we will definitely need to insist on new and higher standards for employment in the Civil Service and this may necessitate redeploying much of the present staff.

The CES will also have to be a "facilitative State' as the IMF/World Bank has been insisting. We have no problem with the propositions that the Government will play a regulatory role to restore (and maintain) markets to their proper function (clearing markets). This is a vital role as the 1997 crisis in the Far East demonstrated…but we cannot insist on making the environment perfect before we attract the real investments. Similarly, we accept that Government will have to provide education, primary healthcare and infrastructure. We acknowledge that public finances have increased in this area under the PPP. However, the corruption that is evident in the awarding of contracts in the capital aspects of these programs have left a bitter taste in the mouths of Guyanese. And many are rightfully sceptical and even bitter about any suggestion that the Government should take a more interventionist role in economic development.

Budget 2005: Stagnation
by Ravi Dev

Posted March 7th. 2005

In his Budget speech, the Hon. Minister of Minister spelt out the PPP's "vision" for Guyana: "To create a modern, democratic society with abundant opportunities and a high standard of living." Now, we know that if a vision is not grounded in some reality it becomes tantamount to building castles in the air. More germanely then, the theme of the Budget summarised the strategy: Confronting Challenges - Sustaining Growth and Development. Well, going by the figures the Minister himself supplied us with for growth of the economy over the past five years, it averaged a paltry .6%…and this from widely conceded, heavily massaged figures. Is this the growth the government is going to "sustain"? Is this what Minister Collymore meant when he declared that the "budget showed where we came from and where we are going?" However we know that while we know that there may be growth without development…no one would argue that we could have development without growth. A less than one percent growth rate is statistically insignificant, making it impossible for achieving the PPP's own Millennium Goals and dooming us to stagnation. Last year the PM said that at the very minimum we needed to have a growth rate of at least 7% to have any significant results.

Growth

To understand why the strategy cannot deliver, we can examine the Minister's own elaboration of the PPP's strategy for "sustaining growth and development". He revealed that the "strategic interventions in 2005 will centre on maintaining macroeconomic stability, expanding the economy through enhanced performance of traditional industries; diversification and the development of new activities; rapidly expanding job opportunities .." But looking at the elaboration of the plan one sees nothing strategically different from the plan that delivered us the miserable growth rate over the past five years. It is obviousthat the Government has washed its hands of any focused role in economic development, in favour of merely providing a stable macro-environment.

Once again, the PPP boasted about the inflation and exchange rates holding steady. The Minister was unapologetic about these criteria being set by the World Bank and the IMF. (They don't mention the deficit…which is expected to balloon to 14.2%….far exceeding the 3% cap set by the IFI's. Aren't they concerned about the inflationary potential of deficit spending as preached by the Washington Consensus' orthodoxy?) The PPP has missed the whole point about "macro-economic" fundamentals. Stable inflation and exchange rates are supposed to deliver investment that will result in growth. The "fundamentals" are not ends unto themselves but means to the end of growth. If there is no growth - and the PPP's figures verify this - we have to have take another look at the "fundamentals".

Capitalism is all about making an economy grow under ownership of production in private hands. The bottom line is getting private people to invest. The PPP has been singularly unsuccessful in this area. In terms of generating real growth, the private investment has literally been chickenfeed. The recent announcements by Barama and Omai are from firms attracted from the PNC era. The biggest investor in Guyana, one again is the Government of Guyana - but apart from GuySuCo, the investment is in infrastructure. This is again within the World Bank/IMF orthodoxy: that private investment needs infrastructure. Well it does; but what if the investment doesn't show up? Are infrastructure and "macro-economic" fundamentals sufficient to deliver us to the promised land of phenomenal capitalist growth rates? Our history has conclusively proven that they do not. But what can you expect from a government that has an economic development program labelled "Poverty Reduction Strategy Paper"? Part of the problem of the Government lack of originality is caused by the reality that economic strategy is dictated completely by one man (whose name, I am told we cannot mention in this house?) A clue on the identity of the myopic strategist can be gleaned by the fact that the President has insisted on conducting all the negotiations with the IFI's rather than the Finance Minister, within whose remit they fall, and the PRSP program is run out of the Office of the President.

This, of course, is in line with the IMF's "one shoe fits all" dogma that such an environment will guarantee investment. In our estimation this is tantamount to guaranteeing that Guyana never becomes developed. This is not merely my opinion but the position of even an insider like Joseph Stiglitz, former Chief Economist of the World Bank (not to mention being Bill Clinton's Chairman of the Council of Economic Advisors).

When Stiglitz and other insiders can boldly inform us that the Agenda of the IMF and other IFI's are driven by a US Treasury agenda, we have to then take its prescriptions very guardedly. We have to protect our own national interests - as the US Treasury is doing wit the US'. Apart from the fact that there may be other, non-economic, factors inhibiting investment - such as political instability - investment and the consequent economic growth is not just a question of creating institutional environments but rather one of creating institutional arrangements. But even in its wailing about the constraining environmental factors such as crime and security, has the Government moved effectively to curb these? One is still waiting to see funds in the budget to create a SWAT Unit voted on by this House two years ago, to confront the new high-intensity crime modus operandi.

Growth Examples

We have to look at how others were able to create investment opportunities starting with even greater constraints than us, and how these were realised in a sustainable manner. Let theory be guided by successful practice. The history of the world after World War II has demonstrated that the countries that were able to pull themselves out of the poverty trap - Hong Kong, Singapore, Taiwan, South Korea and then later Malaysia etc. all followed the example of Japan in that the State was integrally involved in formulating and executing explicit industrial policies. Stanley Ming spoke about the success of Singapore. The central linchpin of Singapore's success lay in Lee Kuan Yew's articulation of a clear strategy for development in which his Government played the key role. He enumerated the constraints, identified the opportunities and methodically set about removing the constraints achieve the identified opportunities one after the other. The people of Singapore were willing to accept near-term deprivations because they could see the vision slowly becoming reality.

On the other hand, no one in Guyana has any faith in this Government's grandiose plans…because every year, all we hear are "buzzwords". Don't we all remember the hullabaloo over "I.T." two or three years ago? Now its raw materials such as bauxite to fee the Chinese behemoth: well, China has been growing for two decades…where was the focused strategy to supply raw materials. Only last year we were writing off the bauxite industry. What about being the "gateway to South America" when the PM claims that we can't have a deep-water harbour until we have massive exports? Even my Nanie knew when to build a latrine! We note that strategic infrastructural structures for generating growth are frowned upon by the IFI's, and the PPP meekly acquiesces - excepting when it comes to bread-and-circus items like the cricket stadium.

I know that we in Guyana, have had a disastrous experience with state involvement in development but let us not throw out the baby with the bath water. (And let's not forget that the IFI's were just as complicit in the fiasco because they had to launder OPEC oil money. Not all state actions are negative and in fact there may be the necessity for government interventions when the free market is stymied for one reason or other (market failure). And if we don't have market failure here, we certainly have market constipation. We need only to look at our banks being awash with money and yet have no investments (the liquidity problem I discussed, and our PM bemoaned, earlier).

After our experience, we agree that the State has to be transformed into one that is as small as possible but at the same time we have to insist that it should be as large as necessary to ensure that we move ourselves out of poverty in as short a time as possible. Our development plans were driven by State ownership of production (State Capitalism) which destroyed the market forces necessary for competition and other disciplines necessary for sustainable growth. The socialist dogmas undergirding the then development policies were inimical to the free market and spawned a culture of special interests seeking to benefit from the state policies (rent seeking). Yes, we should learn from our experience as to the downside risks of a large governmental role in industrial policy and act to minimise those risks, but we must not ignore the fact that no country in the modern era has risen out of poverty on loans from World Bank/IMF and without strong Government intervention.

Awash in money

The Prime Minister at least elaborated on the Finance minister's bald statement of our "liquidity" problem. Alluding to the fact that even after the Government has sterilised some $50 billion dollars (and paying some $2 billion annually for the privilege) the banking sector was still awash in cash, the PM complained that "we're saving but not investing". Yet he saw the Government's role to stimulate investment as only building infrastructure. What has the Government done to make the "local investors" he called upon to invest, want to suddenly jump in. What have they done to force the Banks to lend investors at reasonable rates? They actually made the safe-haven of T-Bills even more attractive to banks by raising the interest rate during 2004.

Catalytic State

ROAR has called for the creation of what has been labelled a "Catalytic Entrepreneurial State" (CES). Such a state will firstly have to be a responsible state, with a strong demonstrated commitment to private sector development . The Government has to be willing to let Guyanese become wealthy. The Government will obtain the money for any perceived or real inequities from taxes. The rising tide will raise all ships. The Government's relationship with the Public Service is another area of grave concern in the formation of a CES. In whatever endeavour the State engages, much depends on the professionalism of the Civil Servants for the success of that endeavour. We have recently heard much about reform of the Civil Service - but the Government has not been clear in what context such reforms will take place. If, for instance, we envisage a CES, then we may not have to downsize our Civil Service but rather raise the salary scales and train the employees to perform their new developmental tasks. In Singapore, the Government insisted that Civil Servants' salaries be on par with their counterparts in the private sector. In Guyana, we will definitely need to insist on new and higher standards for employment in the Civil Service and this may necessitate redeploying much of the present staff.

The CES will also have to be a "facilitative State' as the IMF/World Bank has been insisting. We have no problem with the propositions that the Government will play a regulatory role to restore (and maintain) markets to their proper function (clearing markets). This is a vital role as the 1997 crisis in the Far East demonstrated…but we cannot insist on making the environment perfect before we attract the real investments. Similarly, we accept that Government will have to provide education, primary healthcare and infrastructure. We acknowledge that public finances have increased in this area under the PPP. However, the corruption that is evident in the awarding of contracts in the capital aspects of these programs have left a bitter taste in the mouths of Guyanese. And many are rightfully sceptical and even bitter about any suggestion that the Government should take a more interventionist role in economic development.

PPP vs. IMF

But this is what the moves to increase "transparency" in governance all about. We need a freedom of information act. We commend the World Bank/ IMF to push the Government in this direction. But, like I said, we can't cut our nose to spoil our face. We know that with our circumstances, investors are not going to flock spontaneously to our shores and pump money into our economy in quantities sufficient to put us back on the path of high growth. We return to our discussion on how we may possibly get out of the economic backwaters the PPP Government has consigned us to languish in, apparently forever. They will have to sit down with the IFI's and insist that they play a more - interventionist - role in an industrial policy. The Government ironically demonstrated that a small country can in fact argue against a IMF canonical position and have it changed. Witness the case of GUYSUCO. As late as 1995, as per IMF conditionalities, GUYSUCO was being prepared for privatisation. Dr. Cheddi Jagan argued otherwise and the IMF had to hold off its prescriptions. Sadly, in retrospect, it appears that the PPP was motivated in its stance against IMF dictat as much as by politics as by economics. We all know that the sugar workers represent a vote bank for the PPP - obviously more strategic than the World Bank.

. We repeat our fundamental point of difference with the World Bank's conditionalities under which Guyana's economy is being mannered, er, managed. To wit, we cannot focus only on macroeconomic equilibrium at the expense of economic development - this is the peace of the dead. The World Bank's "Washington Consensus" is necessary but not sufficient to do the job, for us.

Markets

And that's the point right there - "for us". There is no one shoe that fits all. The World Bank, or anyone else, can't just say that the "free markets" alone must be used to fuel our development. There aren't anything as pure "free markets" alone running any economy. The "invisible hand" doesn't mean that there is "no hand". In every country, production and productivity are functions of the right mix of three institutions - the market, the state and the community. They each have to be tailored to produce the societally-decided goals…depending on their historical development. Markets were historically more developed in the West than in Japan where the community relations supplied more of the necessary social capital. In Guyana, our business community simply has not produced a developed and deep market culture.

Catalysts

ROAR's pragmatic approach to development is an indication that the cause of our underdevelopment is to some extent strategic rather than structural. As mentioned, Korea and Singapore were right where we were fifty years ago, if not behind us, not only statistically but structurally. Look where they are today. Their Governments, as catalysts, set strategic goals and then did what was necessary too back into them. Take for instance one reason why the PNC's "import substitution strategy" model of development - the last round of our Government intervention - practiced by so many countries, failed. The Governments assisted and protected domestic industries that became inefficient and non-innovative since the market forces fostering competition were destroyed. We had companies with a captive market that had no reason to improve. The consumer suffered because they had to buy inferior products at inflated prices. The only persons who benefited were the owners of the protected businesses and the Government bureaucrats who had to be bribed to keep the credits and licences coming.

Korea and Singapore, however, followed the Japanese example and explicitly tied credit-assistance to selected private industries based on their commitment and ability to export. This strategic decision had two significant and faithful results that differed from the "import substitution strategy". Firstly, the assisted firms were subjected to the market discipline of international trade. This was, and is, the most intense competition and ensured that efficiencies and productivities had to be raised to the highest levels. These firms not only couldn't afford to be fat and lazy like the protected ones in Guyana, they had to become world class - and they've remained world class. The second benefit, of course, was that the exports brought in foreign exchange and there was no need to ban anything to save foreign exchange. They had the foreign currency to buy whatever they wanted.

In summary, markets may successfully orient individual agents to allocate resources efficiently but they are not sufficient to coordinate individual actions over a long period of time and, most importantly for our purpose, towards desired social goals such as specified rates of growth. Market orientation is not sufficient to generate market coordination toward collective prosperity. This is where the catalytic function of the State comes in. After all, collective prosperity, is why we have the state to begin with, isn't it?

Platform

The government, in its budget, conceded the precarious nature of sugar in Guyana in light of the changes in the preferential EU markets. However even in face of its inability to bring down the cost of production in the Demerara Plantations, seven years into its Strategic Plan, the Government steadfastly refuses to initiate alternative uses for the Demerara acreage. Obviously, it is fixated by its short-term electoral concerns for 2006. But what then, after 2008? We believe that the Government can turn the problems of the Demerara Plantations into opportunities by initiating an industrial policy - with the use of those Plantations at the centre - to move Guyana heavily into Agro-processing. It can do this by identifying new products for those lands, selling the land to the workers through sweat-equity and setting up factories to buy the products either alone, or preferably, through joint-partnerships with an international marketing firm. At last we will be reaping the benefits of externalities of sugar production. Thailand and Belize did this recently with pineapples and papaws respectively.

Government of National Reconciliation

In any strategy where the Government will play a strongly interventionary role in fostering an industrial policy, it is important for there to be widespread support and confidence in the Government or there will be debilitating cries of discrimination - even if the society was not as divided as ours. Even without such a "dirigeste" role, the PPP has been beset by cries of marginalisation throughout its twelve-year regime. Simultaneously with an interventionary role, therefore, the PPP will have to work assiduously to increase its legitimacy. The latter perspective is vitally necessary for Guyana, given the ethnic cleavages existent in our society. ROAR has proposed that an "Ethnic Impact Statement" be issued with the promulgation of every Government policy and program - and in the economic sector this will be even more crucial, since much of the political dissatisfaction arises out of perceived ethnic discrimination in this area. The Government will need national support also in its dealings with the IFI's, from whose path it will be veering.

Many of the Far-eastern success stories quoted earlier were authoritarian regimes that coerced the necessary widespread "national" support. Such a route cannot be chosen by Guyana - our history and politics preclude that path. We therefore have to do whatever it takes to install a responsible, legitimate and broad-based government in place and then let that government take the stronger role in development. The only course to secure the massive development of Guyana is for the PPP to accept the calls from the opposition forces to constitute a Government of National Reconciliation. They can even accept it conditionally until we achieve the necessary high growth rates - approaching 10% - that all commentators, in and out of Government deem necessary to create the foundation for real, improved standards of living in our country.

The people of Guyana should expect no less from any government of Guyana.

A Subaltern History
by Ravi Dev

Posted March 5th. 2005

History, the saying goes, is written by conquerors. Looking at the texts handed down to us, one may add that it is actually written by the elite of the conquerors. I still well remember my earliest history book, An Outline of English History, that only considered events directly associated with the Kings and Queens of England, as worthy of mention. Ordinary folks who struggled and died in their millions were mere fodder and footnotes. Later, even Marxist historians who rejected this perspective, ignored Hegel's distinction between "events" and "actions" and lumped the makers of history as anonymous classes that responded to historical "forces". Of recent, there has been an attempted rectification of this jaundiced historiography by some historians who take a "subaltern" perspective. That is, to look at the contributions of the ordinary folks, in effectuating change - independently of the men on horseback and other elites. They remember too, that there can only be dialectics in consciousness.

I was reminded of these opposing views of "history makers" on the recent death of my father. As a subaltern, he will almost certainly not make it in the history books - but just as certainly I know that he played his part in shaping history. My father's history actually begun on the East Coast, where his widowed Aja (paternal grandfather) was expelled from Plantation Mon Repos for some infraction. This was not an uncommon subaltern experience. The old man brought his son to Uitvlugt on the West Coast to start a new life. My father was born in the logees of field "Letter A" during the mid 1920's just after the end of indentureship in 1921. By the time he was twelve the worldwide Great Depression of the 30's had plunged sugar and the Caribbean into despair and rebellion. He was forced to leave school at the fourth standard and begin working at Plantain Uitvlugt, where a year later four striking workers were gunned down in neighbouring Leonora. The sacrifices such young "subaltern" men across the sugar industry would lead to grudging reforms. History was inexorably changed by them.

The greatest change that was effectuated by my father's generation, and still unacknowledged - much less examined by the official historians - is the remarkable reforms they made in the social institutions brought by their forbears from India. The recent controversy generated by claims made by Dr. Kean Gibson on the role of the Hindu caste system in Guyanese politics is a perfect illustration of this elitist perspective. It is uncontroverted that after 800 years of foreign rule, the social structures - including the caste system - had acquired many deformities in India, by the 19th century. By the mid-century the Arya Samaj (Noble Society) was one of several Hindu responses to reform itself. Several missionaries had visited Guyana from early the 20th century but the arrival of Professor Bhashkaranand in 1937 was crucial in spreading its rejection of "caste" by birth, acceptance of education of women (including becoming priests) and the inculcation of a broad social conscience.

Clem Seecharan has claimed that while the Ramayan was a central text in the lives of the Hindu immigrants, he said they did not conduct exegeses of such texts. I beg to differ. In ever logee settlement, by the 1930's, there was a Ramayan "gol" (circle) with an individual who gave the "arth" or exegesis. My grandfather was one such individual in Uitvlugt and he left a life-long insistence for intellectual pursuit and rigour - and the Hindu demand for its application in one's life. My father was proudest of the fact that his father travelled to Georgetown to search out Prof. Bhaskaranand, invite him to the logees of Uitvlugt and have him conduct a seven-evening lectures against the wishes of some orthodox Pandits and the Pln. Management. My father and quite a few of his peers became "Arya-samajists". His "arya-samajness" was more an attitude than anything else: an attitude of questioning, a commitment to reason and an obsession with argumentation. I am sure that there will be so many readers who will recognise instantly, the "hard-mouth" old-line "Samaajists of whom I speak. I've come across them all over Guyana. While Samajists never became more than ten percent of the Hindu population in Guyana, their arguments, as much as anything else, contributed to the demise of the caste system. Dr. Gibson should research this subaltern history on caste.

My father's post-WW2 generation was the first to make the mass-movement out of the Plantations onto the new housing schemes sponsored by the Jock Campbell of Bookers in the early 1950's. With their new social consciousness, not many of the men allowed their wives to work in the backdams and most swore to do their utmost that their children would never sink to that. My father was quite justly proud that in the end, he kept his word. What made this achievement more remarkable was the fact that in the new schemes, with the improvement in sanitation, water supply, and health facilities, the children did not die like flies as in the previous generation and the families were extraordinarily large. The ten children in my family was a typical number. In the aggregate, their generation created the bulge in the Indian population that was to forever alter the demographics of Guyana and create a new political equation.

My father remembered Dr. Cheddie Jagan standing outside Plantation Uitvlugt, pointing to the Overseers quarters and announcing dramatically, "When we kick those White bastards out, you will live in those houses." It was a standing indictment against my father by my Nana (maternal grandfather - who raised me from the age of six) that he (my father) voted for Dr. Jagan against Dr. Jang Bahadur Singh - the old Indian leader. It was not a coincidence that there were so many Arya samajists among Dr. Jagan's early following: their fire for social change had already been lit. During his retirement in New York, (when he pointed out that he achieved more in ten years amongst the hated White men of his youth) my father became quite cynical about Dr. Jagan and the PPP. He spent much of his last years arguing politics with any Guyanese he could strike up a conversation with along Jamaica Avenue. He was my respected advisor.

At our family reunions, he would look forward to giving his annual "charge", which everyone in the more than 70-odd gathering took most seriously. As I reflect on his own life and of the arenas of life in which those individuals are engaged, and will be engaged, I can only proclaim once again, that this subaltern, my father, has indeed made history.

Post-flood schema
by Ravi Dev

Posted February 14th. 2005

The rains seem to have no intention of letting up: as I write this piece, it is coming down in torrents, as it has been doing since early this morning. It may seem therefore, a bit premature to look ahead at the post-flood implications. Especially as we are learning ominous new words occasioned by the stagnant floodwaters such as "leptospirosis" . But look ahead we must, even as each of us put our shoulder to the (because of the Government's refusal to bring all aboard -sadly not national) wheel to alleviate the present miseries. We have to begin to look at the economic implications of the flood because the greatest impact will felt by the very same folks undergoing the most severe misery today- the people engaged in agriculture, who feed us all by working in the mud. This does not mean that other business interests - such as manufacturers etc, have not been badly hit. It is a fact, however, that the agricultural folks are a more numerous.

Most Guyanese do not appreciate the precarious state of most who engage in agriculture. More than all of us, they are cognisant of the decades of neglect to our drainage and irrigation systems. Flooding and lack of