Posted May 6th. 2002. 2002 - Special Feature by David Hinds

Negotiation or Chaos

If the current situation in Guyana weren't so grim, I would simply say, "I told you so," because I am not surprised at the recent developments in Guyana. Some of us saw it coming a year ago and said so, not because we are cynics, but because we try to face reality. Guyana has been up to no good since December 1997 when not for the first time the body politic began to show the wear and tear of 40 years of racial strain and stress. Sadly, our maximum leaders to whom we invariably turned for solutions are themselves the heart of the problem. But realistically we have no choice, since these elites, with minor exceptions, have been the sole handlers of our collective destiny. Unfortunately, as Guyana slid further down the dirty ladder our collective rationality has perished at the hands of our worst tribal/racial instincts.

How many times in the last 50 years have we proclaimed that Guyana is at the crossroads? That we are forced to say that today is ample testimony that in real terms we really have not advanced much since 1955. Guyanese of all races and classes must accept responsibility for this state of affairs. The rulers have been preoccupied with wielding power at all cost-sometimes ignoring the problem, sometimes exploiting it. The masses, recognizing the racial imperatives of governmental power have generally submerged their class interests and followed the leaders merely on account of racial solidarity. The economic elite and the schooled elite, save for the Walter Rodney school, have been all too willing to serve as cheerleaders for the political dinosaurs.

Is it any surprise then that today criminals and rampant policemen are celebrated? Any society that abandons commonsense and embraces a culture of deception and hate, surrenders to the law of the jungle. This is the Guyana we now live in---a Guyana that defies the age-old assessment that the threat of disintegration engenders commonsense solutions. We--the leaders and followers-- seem to revel in misery. Where are all the young bright leaders in the PNC and the PPP who by their positive utterances raised our expectations of a new day?

So, once again, the schooled elite is groping in the dark for solutions. For the umpteenth time we are looking for the easy way out, refusing to recognize that where we are today is a direct result of choices we made yesterday. The rule of law is collapsing because the soul of the society has collapsed a long time ago. All should welcome capturing the five escaped prisoners, but that would contribute nothing to restoring the rule of law, for the rule of law is directly linked to who governs and how they govern.

Some are calling for a resumption of the dialogue. What nonsense! Except for Lincoln Lewis and the GTUC who call for meaningful dialogue, those who scream for dialogue are either naive or dishonest. Can't we see a relationship between the dialogue and the current state of affairs? The PNC says there is a "pause" in the dialogue, but this "pause" is really the end of the "pause" in the post-election disturbances. The events at Buxton reflect merely a resumption of the 2001 post-election disturbances.

I said in 2001and many times since that the cessation of post-election violence notwithstanding the dialogue was unhelpful. Apart from causing a pause in the violence, its only accomplishment of note has been the postponement of a just settlement of the fundamental problem that has been at the center of all civil disturbances since 1955-the racial distribution of governmental power. The dialogue, wittingly or unwittingly, was aimed at marginalizing the growing calls for power sharing. The current maximum leadership of the PPP and PNC agree on one thing--power must not be genuinely shared. So the option that gives the impression of sharing without sharing seems attractive.

Dialogue is inevitable in the exercise of politics. But in conditions of ongoing conflict, dialogue without negotiating a meaningful end to the conflict is at best futile and at worst dangerous. When danger is at the door, you engage in dialogue not merely to keep the danger from coming beyond the door, but to chase the danger away for the door. Since the Hoyte-Jagdeo dialogue did not set out to chase the danger from the door, its collapse caused the danger to force its way inside with fuming with anger at being kept waiting.

Mr. Hoyte correctly says no to any further dialogue. The PPP says yes to the dialogue but acts in an anti-dialogue manner. It brands as terrorist the party it wants to dialogue with. It supports police summary action against supporters of the party it wants to dialogue with. It refuses on May Day to rally with those unions supportive of the party it wants to dialogue with. Do we really need more proof?

So, the dialogue of yesterday is dead; it cannot and should not be revived for Guyana's sake. There are two alternatives- negotiation or chaos. Chaos now rules Guyana. We now need a dialogue to negotiate a settlement to the underlying cause of the chaos. We need to negotiate our shared future or face the harsh truth of no future.

While the PNC and PPP are central to this negotiation, it is not safe to have them decide by themselves. This was one of the big mistakes of the Hoyte-Jagdeo dialogue. Other parties must now sit at the table. Winning elections in Guyana is about rallying the troops to join a zero-sum war, but negotiating the country's future is about courage and vision-two qualities that are in short supply when the PPP and PNC are left to themselves.

Dr Hinds is a University Lecturer and Political Commentator and Activist. He currently teaches Political Science at Glendale College and Mt San Antonio College in California. Please send your comments on this article to dhinds6106@aol.com. An archive of Dr Hinds' other writings can be found on his website-guyanacaribbeanpolitics.com.