Posted September 4th. 2004 - Special Feature by David Hinds

How much longer must Guyana tolerate the PPP's Stubbornness?

Despite the ultimate power of the United States and other big powers in shaping the world, the rulers of individual countries still have considerable power over internal matters. These rulers still have power over the allocation of resources and over the organs of legitimate force. In the case of Guyana, these powers lie solely in the hands of those who control executive power. The lack of separation of powers in the Guyanese system has resulted in a fusion of executive and legislative powers in the hands of the same party. This, in a racially segmented country, means total institutional power in the hands of one race group through its party. Where the other group has power, it is non-institutional power that has the ability to disrupt and undermine but not to allocate resources and make law. The struggle between the PPP and the PNC is a struggle between institutional power and non-institutional power, between the power to disrupt and undermine and the power to allocate resources, between state force and street force.

After fifty years of persistent racial rivalry over Executive political power, East Indians and Africans in Guyana have become what Arthur Lewis refers to as "historical enemies." Unless the struggle over this power is resolved in a manner that guarantees the security of both groups, the country will remain the theatre of poverty, hopelessness and fear that it has been these five decades.

Former President Burnham attempted to solve the problem by institutionalizing authoritarian rule, which ultimately left the country in worst shape than it was at the end of colonialization. Dr. Jagan and the PPP opted for a "democratic dictatorship" whereby the principle of majoritarianism has been used as a means of institutionalizing a one-race form of governance with the occasional pretense of inclusion. This inclusion is a pretense, as it does not alter the distribution of the real power to decide who gets what, when and where.

After trying authoritarianism, democratic dictatorship, dialogue and constructive engagement without any success at solving the problem of power it is no surprise that violence has taken center stage. The murder of mostly East Indians by African bandits may be crime on the surface but it is legitimized by the break down of the rule of law and a racial atmosphere that is unsympathetic to the blows the other side takes. The vast majority of Africans, wrongly or rightly, privately sees this banditry against East Indians as revenge for what to them is political and economic domination by Indians. On the other hand, the murder of mostly African young men by state-sponsored death squads, may look like extermination of bandits on the surface, but it also benefits form the break down of the rule of law and an uncaring racial atmosphere. The vast majority of East Indians see the murder of these young men as justice for the physical attacks meted out to them. It is only a matter of time that the violence moves from this level to the wider mass level for when violence is given free reign it eventually consumes even the innocent.

It seems as if the PNC has recognized this. Even for a fierce critic of that party, party leader, Mr. Corbin's recent pronouncements must be seen as a significant development. He calls for a halt to the attacks on Indians. For the first time since the violence started more than two years ago the PNC has made a clear statement on this phenomenon. Mr. Corbin is obviously speaking to the African Guyanese criminals. Remember Mr. Burnham, Corbin's mentor, once said that he who calls off the dogs is admitting to owning them. Mr. Corbin is, therefore, taking a big political risk here. He calls for burying the hatchet with the PPP, the furthest any PNC leader has ever gone on this score. Finally, he does not call for the removal of the PPP but for a sharing of power with them. Whether one likes the PNC or not these are gestures outside of the political box that we have been accustomed to in Guyana and they must be encouraged. The talk about Mr. Corbin matching his word with deed is at best silly. The deed has to be mutual. Where is the PPP's word? Has it called for an end to phantom violence against Africans? Has it called for sharing Guyana with others? Has it call for burying the hatchet with the PNC? Has it admitted to mistakes? The PPP's response is instead a rejection of Mr. Corbin's gestures and pronouncements. Both President Jagdeo and Mrs. Jagan have poured scorn on them.

The PNC has spoken clearly and the PPP has responded clearly. Guyana has two choices before it: Work for peace as the PNC has publicly committed itself to, or stand in the way of peace, as the PPP seems equally committed to. The PPP's stubbornness has now become its trademark. Even Jimmy Carter recognizes this. How much longer can Guyana tolerate the PPP's stubbornness? The power the PPP is afraid to lose is not theirs; it belongs to all of Guyana.

I have in the past called on Africans to pressure the PNC to say clearly where it stands on the question of peace. Now I call on Indians to step up to the plate and push the PPP off its high horse. Sharing executive power will not solve Guyana's deep-seated problems overnight but it is a stop sign on the dangerous road of self-destruction that the country is currently on.

David Hinds lectures in Caribbean and Africana Studies at Arizona State University in the USA. He is also a political and social commentator who has written extensively on Guyana and Caribbean politics. More of his writings can be found on his GuyanaCaribbeanPolitics.com website.