Posted June 12th. 2002. - Special Feature by David Hinds

Civil Society in Guyana is compromised by Racial Solidarity

The recent debate on the role of Civil Society in Guyana is yet another example of how much we have become accustomed to burying our heads in the sand. If Civil Society refers to that space in which citizens organize independent of the status quo, then there is no discernable Civil Society in Guyana. The organizations that would normally constitute Civil Society are integrated into one racial-tribal bloc or the other. Hence, the CIVIC and REFORM, which are representative of a tendency in the society to organize in tandem with the parties. Polarized politics invariably consumes any middle ground, with the situation being more pronounced in ethnically polarized societies. Because the Caribbean is a party-driven society, there is little or no space for Civil Society.

Mr. Deryck Bernard's assumption that there is a civil society that cuts across race assumes that Guyana is race neutral. Of course it is not. We are manifestly one of the most polarized societies in the world. What we have in Guyana are citizens' organizations whose independence are compromised by the deep racial cleavages in a society where racial solidarity transcends even common sense. These organizations cannot therefore play in mediating or neutral role. Neutrality is a scarce commodity in highly polarized societies. Even when non-members of the competing blocs attempt to speak, they are given prominent membership in one of blocs. Note the extreme "africanization" of Kwayana, Andaiye, Ogunseye and other African WPA members.

Mr. Rampertab accuses Mr. Bernard of meaning Indian society when he speaks of the inactive Civil Society. But Mr. Bernard could not have committed that crime as he, like so many of our schooled elite, either refuses to admit or pretends not to know that we are two sub-nations or "pre-nations." to borrow a Kwayanite term

Mr. Rampertab also carelessly and spitefully charges the PNC with crushing Civil Society. Nothing is further from the truth. Actually, the closest Guyana came to fashioning a Civil Society was during the PNC years, when Indian and African independents along with those of the other races organized independently as part of the anti-dictatorial movement. Ironically, it was PNC repression that engendered this tendency while the PPP was hostile to it because it [the PPP] saw this emerging Civil Society as "right wing." This promise of a Civil Society disintegrated with the democratic opening in 1992 as many of its members either joined or lined up with the PPP and PNC.

Perhaps the only group in Guyana that bears any resemblance to Civil Society is the WPA. Although a political party that has competed for power, its fierce independence of thought and action and steadfast opposition to racial competition, means that it is the only organized group in the society that has the courage to say the things that need to be said. The trouble is that the WPA's strength is also its weakness, as both Africans and Indians in their pursuit of hegemony see it as a humbug.

Others fought the PNC dictatorship too

I note that Dr. Leslie Ramsammy has become the PPP's propaganda czar. Dr. Ramharak has already pointed to the contradictions therein. So I shall not tarry there. I, however, wish to ask Dr. Ramsammy to be careful about twisting history since we live in a society that has a tended to irresponsibility act on twisted history. Dr. Ransammy in one of his letters extols the PPP's role in dislodging the PNC from office. He mentions no other group. He makes a very brief and malicious reference to Walter Rodney, but let's leave that for another day.

The danger of Dr. Ramsammy's thesis is that in our polarized society "PPP alone fought the PNC" is easily translated to "Indians alone fought the PNC" or "Africans did not fight the PNC." Dr. Jagan made this mistake in his 1956 congress speech when he reported that Indian PPP members were complaining that the African PPP executives were not making sacrifices. Dr. Jagan's error was that he did not rebuke or correct those Indian PPP members. The truth is that African PPP executive members, Sydney King et al, had been imprisoned after the 1953 debacle. Burnham was not imprisoned, but what Dr. Jagan also did not report was that he along with Burnham and others were instructed by a party decision to avoid imprisonment so as to ensure that there were cadres to continue the party's work. Dr. Jagan flouted the party's decision and broke the ban on his movements, which led to his imprisonment.

Dr. Ramsammy also dismisses the roles of several organizations and individuals who participated in the struggle to remove the dictatorship. He is correct in saying that the PPP played a major role in the anti-dictatorial movement. But others also did. The following account of the major protests should throw some light on the events of the period in question.

During the 1964-68 period the PPP alone openly opposed the PNC although it was later joined by the UF when the PNC moved to take control of the electoral machinery. The period 1968-74 saw the emergence of new players in opposition to the PNC--ASCRIA, RATOON, MAO, IPRA, and significantly the bauxite workers at Linden led by the "Committee of Ten" which later became the Organization of Working People (OWP). ASCRIA was the leading opposition force during this period as its Linden chapter was the force behind series of strikes between 1969 and 1971. It also confronted the PNC on corruption and, along with IPRA, organized the 1973 "land for the landless" campaign. The PPP, went quiet during this period, but re-entered the fray as the 1973 elections approached. It launched a civil disobedience campaign that was supported by the Liberator Party and Llewelyn John's PDM, and also vigorously opposed the setting up of the National Service.

The next period 1974-85 saw new forces taking center stage--WPA, The Four Unions ( NAACIE, GAWU, CCWU, UGSA), VLD, COMPASS, OWP, The Democratic Teacher's Movement, and DLM and the Guyana Human Rights Association. During this period, three umbrella organizations--the Committee in Defense of Democracy (CDD) and the Council on National Safety (CNS) and the Citizen's Committee (CC) also emerged in opposition to the 1978 referendum.

ASCRIA led the protest against Rodney's banning in 1974; the OWP led the 1976 strikes at Linden; the DTM led the teachers strike on the Correntyne in 1977; the PPP led the GAWU strike in 1977; the CDD and CC led the referendum boycott in 1978; the WPA led the 1979-80 Civil Rebellion that included strikes spearheaded by the Four Unions and the OWP; and the WPA and OWP led the 1983 food protests at Linden, and on the East Coast and West Coast Demerara. Throughout this long struggle sections of the media, in particular the Catholic Standard, the Caribbean Contact, DAYCLEAN, OPEN WORD, MIRROR and the Liberator, played crucial roles while individual such as Mike Fitzpatrick, Bishop George and Father Malcolm Rodrigues made invaluable contributions.

Finally, the 1986-92 period saw the emergence of the umbrella Patriotic Coalition for Democracy (PCD) and the GUARD group, while the Four Unions became FITUG. The PCD led the anti-Thalium protests in 1987; the WPA led the anti-oil shortage protests later that year, and FITUG led the 1989 general strike.

I am sure that I missed some organizations and individuals, but its not intentional. One glance at the above account shows that the PPP spearheaded very few of the major protests, but it participated with others in the many joint efforts. So Dr. Ramsammy, tell me how your thesis that the PPP alone fought or led the fight against the dictatorship makes sense.

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.