Posted November 13th. 2002. - Special Feature by David Hinds

Lets challenge ourselves to create a less imperfect future

One of the unfortunate things about Guyana is that most scholars, politicians, and scholar-activists of all ideological persuasions tend to avoid any penetrative analysis of race in their discourse of national affairs. Those who have bothered to delve into this phenomenon have tended to do so almost entirely within the narrow confines of the reflexes of their own group. The consequence of these two approaches has been on the one hand a denial of perhaps the single most potent driving force in our country's political economy and on the other hand the development of a culture of racial accusation and defensiveness.

The debate on race in Guyana has, however, managed to persistently announce its presence. But the challenge has been how to merge a conversation on race with the other elements of national discourse without falling into the trap of racial defensiveness or becoming easily susceptible to charges of racism. Some would argue that this is a near impossible project. Yet it is what is most needed in a society of mostly poor and powerless people who are sharply polarized along racial lines.

As Guyana experiences another of its frequent moments of pain and instability, the debate on race inevitably re-emerges. For me, the key issue is how to transform this debate into a lasting conversation and discourse with the expressed aim of creating a national consensus that discriminates against none and protect and promote the dignity and security of all. How do we merge the racial subjective into the national objective?

There are some glaring weaknesses in the current debate of which I am a part. Thus, I take my share of responsibility for this problem. Before I point out these weaknesses, it must be noted that a big positive of the current debate is that unlike earlier ones, it is not premised on a denial of the racial problem. A second general observation is that a debate cannot be analyzed in isolation from the environment is which it takes place. Thus in critiquing the current debate, I bear in mind that it is taking place against the backdrop or "frontdrop" of political instability of which racial considerations are a part. This crucial consideration of the subjective is a most necessary, though not the only, component of an honest discourse on race.

My first criticism of the current debate is its ultra-defensiveness. This is rooted in the feelings of victimhood by both Indians and Africans--Africans point to economic or political marginalization and police repression while Indians point to terror at the hands of both the African criminal and other sections of the African community. These are real concerns. But the problem with the current debate is that neither side recognizes the legitimacy of the concerns of the other side. Indian politicians and activists deny there is African marginalization and dismiss extra judicial killings by the police as the just reward for criminals. African politicians and activists on the other hand either dismiss the physical violence against Indians as "collateral damage" in the quest for justice or refuse to locate the violence as a particular form of anti-Indian ideological development that is inimical to the creation of a national community. This refusal to acknowledge our common victimhood holds up the transformation of the debate into a conversation and discourse and in the process it reinforces the ascendancy of the extremist tendencies on both sides of the racial divide. The African freedom fighters operating from the Buxton base benefits from the Indian refusal to recognize the legitimacy of the African concerns and the emergence of newly announced Indian self-defense initiative is largely result of the African refusal to treat the anti-Indian violence as an unacceptable racial abomination.

My second criticism of the dialogue is the tendency to treat the PPP and the PNC as formations that function outside of the respective racial enclaves. This is a grave mistake. Indian critics of the PNC, with few exceptions, have not criticized the PPP within the context of negative developments in the Indian community. Some confine their criticisms of the PPP for not defending Indians against African terror while others, like Joey Jagan, criticize the party for being Marxist Leninist. African critics also treat the PNC as an African Guyanese aberration or as something operating above the African condition. While these parties are products of the country's historical authoritarian development, they are not autonomous from the racial divide. Their survival has a lot to do with their how they are perceived by Africans and Indians. While both use multiracial rhetoric, they would cease to exist in their present forms if their racial connections miraculously disappear.

The position that the PPP has not adequately guarantee Indian security, though correct, needs some rethinking. The question is whether a racial party in Guyana's milieu can guarantee both political-economic security, as the PPP largely does concretely for the Indian elite and psychologically for the Indian downtrodden, and other forms of security. For in our constitutional arrangements, political-economic insecurity for one race is guaranteed at the expense of that of the other race. This then invariably leads to a response by the excluded race on the symbols of what they perceive as domination by the other race. The point here is that security for both races can be best guaranteed by arrangements that do not exclude one race from the corridors of power. In the circumstances of power politics the PPP has to choose between Indian political-economic hegemony and the physical security of Indians. Similarly during the PNC years, the PNC, for all its firmer grip on the state, had to sacrifice African economic security for the survival of political security.

A third criticism of the debate is the misuse of history. A proper appreciation of history is indispensable to understanding of the present and crafting the future. Yet, if history is manipulated, it becomes a dangerous destabilizing tool. We run this risk in our present debate. Indian critics present the PNC reign as something in and of itself while African critics present the current PPP government as the beginning and end of Guyana's history. This is patently wrong; it creates a tunnel vision that feeds a kind of "ignorant racism" on both sides. Both the PNC and PPP regimes are historical formations. Clive Thomas's classic analysis of the rise of the Authoritarian State is invaluable in this regard. While the PNC regime was controlled and buttressed by Africans, its emergence was not simply a result of some inherent need of African to control Indians or Burnham's thirst for power. It was a direct consequence of choices made by the African and Indian leaderships and followers between 1953 and 1964 against the background of international forces, in particular cold war considerations by both Washington/London and Moscow/Havana. The point here is that our actions and counter actions facilitated the rise of PNC authoritarianism. When one situates all of this within the context of the authoritarian slave-colonial past, the tunnel vision that blames the other race disappears. Did Jagan's choice of race over class after the 1955 split not alienate key African allies, which in turn consolidated African solidarity? Did the PPP concern with toeing the international communist line and its less than vigorous concern about the democratization of the authoritarian colonial system not help to create the ground for the rise of Burnhamism?

By the same token, the present PPP regime is a direct consequences of choices made by the PNC during its reign and by the PNC, PPP, and WPA during the transition from authoritarian rule presided over by Desmond Hoyte. Did the PNC negotiate hard enough for African political security in the closing stages of its regime or was it more concerned with trying to win over Indian voters so that it can continue to rule? Did the PNC ridicule of Jagan not alienate many Indians? Did the WPA allow its extreme dislike of the PNC to get in the way of its push for a shared governance model to succeed the PNC? Did the PPP not box itself into an isolated racial corner when it failed to recognize and utilize Hoyte's political goodwill (1985-92) as genuine patriotism or when it dumped the WPA instead of recognizing and utilizing the WPA's worth in holding the country to the political-racial center? Did the PNC not help to create this PPP monster when it failed to support or push for constitutional reform that would have fostered a more inclusionary form of governance? When we the people turned our backs on the WPA or hastened that party's marginalization, either through the vote or through racial grandstanding, did we not realize that we were destroying our own chances for a multi-racial mediating center? These are important questions that must enter our debate if we really want a conversation about our shared future.

I urge my fellow debaters and other concerned actors to think about these issues and begin to honestly address them. We have to raise our debate to the level of a conversation. As an African of the Rodney-Kwayana tradition I want to reach out to Africans of the Burnham-Hoyte tradition so that we can together stop our African madness and rebuild our cultural defenses not to fight other races but to go to work for real and purposeful African Guyanese empowerment. There are contradictions in the African Guyanese experience than only Africans can solve. More importantly, I want to reach out to Indians of the Jagan-Jagdeo tendency, the Balram Singh Rai-Ravi Dev tendency, and yes Indians of the Walter Rodney tendency. I want us to try together to lay the groundwork for purposeful coexistence. I don't seek Indian votes or Indian validation in the same way that I don't seek African votes or validation. I, however, seek Indian and African solidarity in the cause of Guyana. I feel strongly that Jagan, Burnham, Hoyte, Kwayana, and Rodney rightly or wrongly did what they did from their historical vantage point.
They have left us a Guyana, however imperfect. Let us not crucify one another because of the mistakes of these leaders. Instead lets draw on their positives and challenge ourselves to create a less imperfect future.

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.

For more information about and analysis of Guyanese and Caribbean politics click here at guyanacaribbeanpolitics.com.