Posted September 21st. 2003. - Special Feature by David Hinds

Mr Diene is on the Ball

As Guyana continues to wallow in its racial mess, two recent comments should be noted--one come from the United Nations Special Rapporteur on racism, Mr. Doudou Diene, and the other from Bishop Randolph George. Both comments took aim at race and racial politics and were made in the context of the need for racial reconciliation. Yet they had different rings.

Bishop George argues that labels such as Afro-Guyanese and Indo Guyanese should be banned since their use "deepens the divide and is a psychological barrier to the inclusivity we seek." I have great problems with that view, which I will address another time. But Mr. Diene, to my mind, strikes the nail on the head when he observed that Guyana's racial problems are premised on fear and insecurity rather than hate. Mr. Diene comments are not original--Eusi Kwayana had long ago drawn attention to what he calls " ethnic insecurity." Ravi Dev and Dr. Baytoram Ramharak introduced us to the concept of "ethnic security dilemma." And only a few months ago Stabroek News did an insightful editorial on ethnic and racial insecurity.

But Mr. Diene's observation is telling, given the fact that it comes from someone who is unfamiliar with the day-to-day dynamics of Guyana's politics. His observation is all the more instructive as it challenges the simplistic explanations of the country's problem such as "There is no race problem in Guyana" or " It's those who harp on race that excite the people."

The truth is that there is a race problem in Guyana that is larger than the politicians and the racial entrepreneurs. Racial groups living side by side will always be suspicious of one another. That suspicion turns to fear and insecurity when the issue of who controls power--decision making (political) and resources (economic)-- invariably arises. In other words, groups fear domination by the other and act out that fear through the choices they make both at the community and national levels.

Group culture is influenced by this need to defend the group from domination. Hence the anti African element in Indian cultural reflexes and the anti Indian element in African cultural reflexes. It is in this context that Roger Moore's recent comments that Indians teach their children negative things about African must be seen. As Clarence Ellis infers, Moore's mistake was not the comments that he made, but rather it was his omission that Africans also teach their children negative things about Indians.

But back to Diene's comment. The key question here is what is it that both Africans and Indians fear? The answer is simple- domination by the other group. What compounds this fear is that both groups had a taste of domination by the other. What do I mean by this? We have had a system of governance, misnamed democratic, that actually encourages and promotes domination. For example, the PPP supported by Indians, 1957 -1964 and 1992 to the present, did not set out to dominate Africans, but it has governed through a system that totally excludes its rivals from decision making. To what extent Indians have benefited from PPP's dominance can be debated until the end of time. But what is clear is that when the PPP is in power Indians security is buoyed, if only on the surface, and African insecurity increases. The same thing happens when the PNC held power in 1964-92; African security was buoyed and Indian insecurity increased.

But, the group that feels more secure is simultaneously insecure, as it must constantly look over its shoulders and seek to prevent the other group from taking away its position of dominance. This largely explains the relationship between Africans and Indians and the PNC and PPP respectively. Fear of domination leads each group to support notions of dominance initially as defense and later as an end in itself. This is when fear and insecurity can become hate. Prolonged and unbridled fear and insecurity eventually become hate and then the law of the jungle steps in.

It is for that reason that we have a political and moral duty to search for ways to begin to contain and decrease fear and insecurity. Not many options are open to us. Perhaps the most viable one in the short term is some form of shared democratic governance. As is well known, my own preference is for power sharing in the executive branch among the people's electoral representatives.

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.