Posted June 21st. 2007

The recent exchanges between Eric Phillips and Jerome Khan in the Guyanese press have touched on, among other issues, power sharing. [See Stabroek News and Kaieteur News over the last month] I had anticipated the charge of "intellectualized tribalism" from the diaspora and decided to go into self imposed exile from public debate in Guyana. [See Deryck Bernard's letter to the Stabroek News June 14, 2007] But like the Phillips-Khan debate has made me emulate the calypsonian, the Mighty Chalkdust and "put up me guns again."

I am not too interested in the other things but there are a few brief comments I would like to make about power sharing. First, whatever ones academic, political or ideological problems with power sharing as a political approach or institution, it is quite offensive and insensitive for Indian public persons to object to "sharing" the governance of the country between their "majority" ethnic group and Eric Philips' "minority" ethnic group. As I understand it power sharing in the Guyanese context, from 1961 to the present, has always stressed "sharing" as means of "national healing" even as the advocates have recognized the potential institutional problems with implementing it. [The first Power Sharing proposal in Guyana was put forward in 1961 by Eusi Kwayana on behalf of the African Society for Racial Equality (ASRE)] Power Sharing is correctly seen as an institutional challenge, but its critics discount the fact that sharing the resources-economic and political-- of an ethnically divided society is an absolute necessity if that society is to survive as a single entity. The power of decision-making is perhaps the most important resource in a country as it determines how other resources are distributed. Hence, all groups in a democratic polity have an equal claim to it.

Second, something is not bad simply because it is advocated by "ethnic opportunists." Even opportunists can see the virtue in things. Regardless of the ethnic nature of a society--homogenous, heterogeneous or "halfgenous"-- power not shared has turned out to be power abused. And when that abuse occurs in a conflictual environment, it excites extreme responses which eventually undermine the entire nation.

Third, Eric Phillips correctly talks about power sharing as an African Guyanese human right. He is speaking as an African Guyanese advocate. But I am sure Eric will readily agree that power sharing is the human right of all ethnic groups. If power sharing can translate ethnic rivalry and conflict into a just and peaceful ethnic co-existence then all Guyanese deserve a share in it.

Fourth, many observers have correctly pointed to power sharing as sharing power among elites. In that sense it is far from the perfect democratic approach. But insofar as it keeps the country from self-destructing and broadens the legitimacy of the government, it is carrying out a democratic service. No political approach or system is an end in itself. It is always a work in progress whose usefulness or uselessness is determined by the concrete social and political motions.

David Hinds lectures in Caribbean and African Diaspora Studies at Arizona State University in the USA. His writings on Politics in Guyana and the Caribbean can be found on his GuyanaCaribbeanPolitics.com website.