Commentary
guyanacaribbeanpolitics.com
Peaceful Struggle vs Armed Struggle
By Dennis Wiggins - November 5th. 2007
I find it pertinent to open this letter by relating a recent encounter I had with one of my neighbours. This is a woman who I often see perambulating the environs but who I calculably avoided because as we say in Guyanese vernacular, she, 'looks flighty.' She would always very politely greet me with hello, on occasions seemingly wanting to converse but I would deliberately avoid any conversation with her. So one day three weeks ago we both exited public transportation and waited to cross the road when she began the conversation by asking me how I was, and upon hearing my accent she then asked the proverbial question, where I came from. Then likewise I asked her where she came from, already presuming that she is from some part of Africa. What I later learned about her story was to say the least shocking. It turned out that she is from a war torn region in the Republic of Congo, Brazzaville. She fled her country because of the 1997 civil war. During the civil war in the Congo she claimed militia men raided her village and in the carnage her husband and three of her sons were murdered, she and her daughter were kidnapped and held by the Militias. Her daughter she said later committed suicide.
This woman's story was emotionally debilitating for me. It was only two months before that I had read Ishmael Beah's book A long way gone. Ishmael Beah is a former child soldier in the civil war in Sierra Leone. After his village was raided and his entire family was slaughtered by the Revolutionary United Front (RUF) rebels, he escaped only to be captured by the government forces that were fighting the rebels. He was turned into a child soldier at the age of thirteen. A long way gone is a riveting, wrenching and haunting account of the life of Ishmael Beah as child soldier. It details the atrocities children are forced to commit in civil wars. There are estimated to be over 30,000 child soldiers around the world in the various intractable civil and ethnic wars.
The mental sum total of all the atrocities told to me by the first hand account of my neighbour as a victim, through the revelation of Ishmael Beah in his memoir as a reluctant violator, and those I have read or seen via the media, reinforce my belief that there is no benefit to be derived from any form of armed struggle as a means of solving societies' problems. Societies must at all cost strive for peaceful co-existence, especially multi-ethnic societies like Guyana mired in lingering low level ethnic conflicts and polarization with the potential for escalation.
It is sometimes easy for those excluded from power, operating in a political system with unequal or non participation in the political outcomes and faced with injustices, to see armed struggle as justification for affirming their rights. Very often armed revolutionary struggle is romanticized by those seeking to acquire political power. What is often absent in the pedagogy of the armed revolution is the reality of the pathology of violence against the innocent in the name of liberation that is often not about liberation but about power for the revolutionary elites.
Indeed, during the colonial dispensation and in the dialectics of the ideological confrontation of the cold war, armed political struggle was the theology of liberation, espoused by some of my heroes like Ernesto Che Guevara, Franz Fanon and Walter Rodney (in the case of Rodney it was to be used as a last resort). However, that was a different time and the fight was for liberation of the third world citizens from imperialism, authoritarianism and capitalist exploitation. The enemies were oppressive governments supported by the imperial west and the uniformed armed forces which were perpetrators of injustices. The reason for the armed revolutionary struggle according to Che Guevara was the triumph of the oppressed proletarian class over the oppressive class. The proletarian oppressed is a plurality.
My other heroes Mahatma Gandhi and Martin Luther King demonstrated that revolutionary action can be waged by non-violent means of confrontation with democratic outcomes.
The problem of armed struggle in multi- ethnic societies is the ethnic dimension that becomes an orgy of violent retaliation and ethnic cleansing, the purpose of which is to change the demographics and in the process eliminate an ethnic threat. Entire ethnic groups become victims on both sides. We see these examples in Rwanda, The Republic of Congo, Sierra Leone, Darfur, Colombia, in Asia and even the Islamic insurgencies in the Middle East. Armed struggle is a major factor in the underdevelopment of many of these societies. The result is genocide, forced migration and the calamity of the refugee flight. Most often rape is used as tool of domination against women, and children, as in the case of Ishmael Beah are forced to fight wars that they have no concept of. There is no linear control in armed conflicts. It causes societies to degenerate into warlordism, backward tendencies and opportunism. These conflicts which are waged on behalf of the poor and dispossessed are often just about power and control for a murderous lot.
So when Bro. Tacuma Ogunseye posed the question in his letter captioned "Does peaceful struggle stand a chance of achieving our political goal of shared governance/executive power sharing," especially for African Guyanese, I am forced to answer that the alternative to peaceful struggle which is armed struggle, is a non option. The African Guyanese masses I believe have no interest in the outcome of armed struggle. But Ogunseye taking the role of provocateur in his letter is warning us that there are fringes in the African Guyanese community who are frustrated with the status quo and perhaps see armed struggle as an option for achieving their objectives. What is known is that shared governance/executive power sharing is best achieved and maintained through political cooperation, negotiation and persuasion; it can never be achieved in the best interest of the society through armed confrontation. Even if there is a political settlement after a protracted period of armed struggle, the peace is a non lasting peace.
In the case of Guyana, Bro. Eusi Kwayana posed the question in his Book The Morning after. What happens the morning after? In Rwanda the morning after was hundreds of thousands dead and years of misery. In Guyana, I can guarantee that Indian Guyanese who are probably more armed will not sit idly by while the African Guyanese armed fringes wage an armed struggle on the government they voted for in a democratic process. If the rise of the Phantom in Guyana is a guide we have already seen the lengths to which some in the society will go. So the morning after is a frightening scene that none of us, African Guyanese, Indian Guyanese, Amerindian Guyanese, Portuguese Guyanese or those of us in the Diaspora want to wake up to.
It is for this reason that it is imperative that ethnic groups in Guyana engage each other in dialogue and reconciliation. Maintaining a peaceful co-existence in Guyana is our only option even as we seek to engage a peaceful and [preferably multi-ethnic] struggle for inclusive governance against an administration with increasingly authoritarian tendencies.
Indian Security Dilemma: A conclusion
By Dennis Wiggins - May 18th. 2007
In his Sunday Column, dated 05/06/07, captioned, ‘Victim-hood and Reconciliation,’ which was a response to the discussion on Indian Guyanese Security Dilemma, Mr. Ravi Dev posed a most profound question. “If victim-hood is real (and I believed it to be real for all Groups in Guyana) then should we not move to act to remove the structural conditions that hinder the ability of the victim to just “move on”?” My reply to Mr. Dev is absolutely. However it is important that we properly analyze what those structural conditions are. The problem is when we treat victimhood not as a problem to be solved but as an identity to be nurtured, and in the process vilified whole groups. Removing the ‘structural conditions’ and ‘moving on’ are not mutually exclusive determinants for reconciliation. Reconciliation requires the maturity and courage to ‘move on’ in order to build a just and fair society for all.
Indeed the historical under-representation of Indian Guyanese in the Guyana Discipline Services should be a concern for all Guyanese, in the interest of creating a fair and just society, as the question of African Guyanese marginalization should be a concern for all Guyanese. But I insist that this is not an Indian security dilemma question. This is a fair employment practice question. It is important that we understand this Security dilemma concept as raised by Mr. Dev.
The security dilemma is a concept that denotes a cognitive state of fear resulting from an existing threat from provocation, between two parties; while trying to avoid conflict, they are forced to take necessary measures to ensure their safety. In introducing this concept to the world in his 1951 book, Political Realism and Political idealism, John Herz referred to potential escalation of conflict through an unintended cycle of provocation in interstate relations. Herz wrote that “one of the tragic implications of the security dilemma is that mutual fear that may never have existed”. Given the frequent outbreak of ethnic conflict in the post cold war developing world, political theorists have begun to reconceptualise the security dilemma concept to explain intrastate ethnic conflict, arguing that once a risk of manifest conflict exists, the security dilemma exists when it becomes imperative for one group to try to strike first because the mutual vulnerability of the groups are high. Do the political ethnic electoral insecurities in Guyana exist on an aggressive basis to warrant the security dilemma categorization? I say no.
I remember after a brief exchange between Dr. Randy Persaud and me at a discussion seminar in Washington DC, an attendee from Sierra Leone, came up to me and said. Mr. Wiggins, “in Guyana ‘you all’ don’t really have an ethnic conflict situation do you,” I smiled. Given what this gentleman had probably experienced to be ethnic conflict how could I comparatively thinking say yes? There is a tendency to exaggerate the situation during discourse. I note some African Guyanese have begun to use the term economic genocide to describe the marginalization of African Guyanese in Guyana. After the 1998 election scrimmages some Indian Guyanese used the term pogrom to describe the situation.
By making an issue that is supposed to be a fair employment practice issue, a security dilemma argument, Mr. Dev is saying that the black police officer historically poses a threat to Indian communities, and as a result of this threat based on historical provocation the need exists to balance the security forces with Indians. This is an argument that preempts conflict. It therefore redefines the role of the security forces from one of national security enforcement to one of ethnic security enforcement depending on, which ethnic group the security officers belong.
In order to make this argument, Mr. Dev is adamant on an historical causation element responsible for the antipathies lying deep in the tradition of Indian Guyanese fear. Mr. Dev uses the historical role of the majority African Guyanese security forces and their “inevitablism” as law enforcers across communities since 1865, to explain the putative antagonism. Mr. Dev is engaging in gross historical simplification.
In my last responds to Mr. Dev I had attempted to convey to him that even though the Guyana Security Forces consist of mostly African Guyanese, the African Guyanese segment of the population have suffered a larger proportion of repression, that the security forces have not shown a partiality to a particular ethnic group while enforcing the law. Some members have been criminally excessive and grossly unprofessional but not partial. I therefore contend that there exists no evidence of a threat or provocation from the security forces to produce an Indian security dilemma.
Take the situation of the Buxton criminal movement that developed in post 2002 prison break (some African Guyanese mischaracterized the criminality to be an African Guyanese resistance) and the refusal of the army to initially go into Buxton; an argument was made that because Buxton is an African Guyanese village, the army was reluctant to go into the village. (A joined security force eventually went into Buxton) The initial debate centered on who was more responsible for law enforcement, the army contending that they do not have a “natural” law enforcement role. I believe this was a plausible argument since a state of emergency was not declared, meanwhile the GPF was ill equipped and possibly too afraid to take on the Buxton security challenge. Though most of the victims of the Buxton criminality were Indian Guyanese, this did not quality as an Indian security dilemma. The fact that Indian Guyanese are disproportionate victims of gun related robberies does not quality the security fears that exist to be a security dilemma question. In South Africa most of the victims of gun related robberies by black perpetrators are white South Africans in a tense ethnic environment, but that does not qualify as a security dilemma. In some areas in the United States most of the victims of gun related robberies are white Americans but there is no security dilemma issue.
The structural conditions that exit in the GDS which produced the dysfunctional African security officer, (most GDS officers are good hard working people) which are inadequate training, lack of accountability and uncheck powers; miserable working conditions; low salary; improper equipment to enforce the law; and under funding by the Government; would also produced the dysfunction Indian security officer with no desire or ability to adequately protect the Indian Guyanese masses. Likewise the same authoritarian west minister model that produced the corrupt and inept African political elites has produced the same corrupt and inept Indian political elites.
There is a beautiful verse in the ‘Gita according to Gandhi’ by Mahadev Desai “the undisciplined man has neither understanding nor devotion; for him who has no devotion there is no peace……..”
I must state that I do not intend to dismiss Mr. Dev argument for the need for a balanced security force. If we are going to fight for a just and fair society then justice must apply to all groups. I however object to the argument which implies that the purpose of the security officer is to protect an ethnic interest rather than a national security interest. I however, believe the Indian Guyanese reluctance to join the GDS, historically, is rooted more in a recruitment location theory rather than the conspiracy theory as described by Mr. Dev.
Indian Security Dilemma: Victimhood or Mischaracterization, A reply to Ravi Dev
By Dennis Wiggins - April 27th. 2007
One of the problems with the politics of ethnicity is that it produces a victimhood psychology, with each ethnic group creating its own narrative of victimhood, real or perceived. Since 1992, what we have seen in the cortex of race relations, is the adoption of victimhood as an identity to be necessarily exaggerated. I believe it is this victimhood psychology that has produced Mr. Ravi Dev's argument that mischaracterized the Indian Security fear, which I responded to, and which attracted a reply from Mr. Ravi Dev in his Sunday column in Kaieteur News, captioned 'Indian fears: Fact or fiction, dated (04/22/07).
This question of Indian Security Dilemma is a question that is worth examining. I should inform Mr. Dev that I do believe that there is an Indian Guyanese security fear in Guyana. I also believe that there is an African Guyanese security fear. What I find unfounded is the Indian rights argument that this Indian security fear is derived from the fact that the Guyana Discipline Forces consist mostly of African Guyanese; that this majority African Guyanese police force is partial to the African Guyanese segment of the population, and because of this fact Indian Guyanese have suffered more at the hands of this force. This position is intended, I believe, to perpetuate the guilty race argument. I am contending that there is no evidence to support this claim; that if the composition of the security forces changes, the same working conditions would produce the same results. The security dilemma question has been mischaracterized because of the ethnic attitude of inserting ethnic quilt in every discourse on race relations; as such the situation is being aggravated.
While I may not be an historian, my knowledge on the history of Guyana's political economy and sociology is enough to detect the partisan attitude with which Mr. Dev account the historical role of the GPF in ethnic repression.
Mr. Dev wrote, "For Indians, their reaction to the armed forces has also been shaped by their historical experiences. Very early on the Colonial order determined that the Indians with "cutlasses in their hands" presented a potent threat and armed policemen were deemed necessary in rural areas. In line with their policy of "divide and rule" they recruited most policemen from the African community since the formation of the GPF in 1839. Those African policemen were not only called on to violently quell protests by sugar workers for better working conditions but to enforce the 'pass laws'."
Is this fact not true for African Guyanese historical experience with the GPF? I am sure Mr. Dev would accept that for African Guyanese, their history of rebellion and resistance represented a more potent threat to the colonial order than any other ethnic group. In fact this was the main reason, the divide and rule policy of the colonial administration was instituted. The colonials fear that the new indentured immigrants would learn the rebellious behavior of the former slaves. It is therefore, this history of necessary rebellion and resistance that brought African Guyanese working class more often into contact with the coercive apparatus of the colonial state. This assessment, however, do not seek to diminish the struggles of indenture workers but merely to correct the a priori partisan view of Dev's account. Historically, colonial Guyana like other parts of the Caribbean was a hotbed for rebellion and resistance. From the great slave rebellion of 1763 (under Dutch rule), the Demerara slave revolt of 1823, the so called Angel Gabriel riots of 1856, the Indian indentured labour riots at Devonshire Castle in 1872, the 1889 "Cent Bread" riot and the 1905 Ruimvelt riot. Often the colonial police were called to quell these rebellions for better living and working conditions, in the most brutal of manner.
The repressive attitude of the GPF continued under the Burnham's authoritarian rule in order to imprint his iron clad control on the society and keep his opponent in check. His opponents were not only Indian Guyanese but also African Guyanese political activists. However, the brutality of this force was reserved for the mostly African Guyanese working and non working urban poor whose experiences with the GPF were often traumatic. The Guyana Human Rights Association found that from 1980 to 1992, under PNC rule, 70 % of the victims of extrajudicial killings were African Guyanese and from 1992 to 2001 the figure was 88%, under the PPP administration. Extrajudicial killing is largely an urban phenomenon and as such African Guyanese have been disproportionate victims. No single group has suffered from police profiling, harassment, and brutality since independent Guyana than the members of the Rastafarian community. For rural Indians, like Mr. Dev, the gravity of this crisis for African Guyanese cannot be appreciated.
On this subject I do not write from a position of abstract intellectualism but as an urban dread locked youth who has lived and witnessed this repression in the ghettos of Georgetown. One of the most notorious extrajudicial offenders in early 1990 was an Indian black clothes policeman name Steve Marai. The statement, "look Marai or look Frazer coming" was enough to engender the hurried steps of the urban youth, away from their location, even for a university trotting student like me. Whether it's Black or Indian police the culture and conditions which produced the lawless policeman is one based on inadequate professional training, poor working conditions, lack of respect for the community, no accountability or consequences for their actions. The poor urban black male was the target. The brutal nature of the third cop is legendary whether its multi ethnic Caribbean, homogeneous African or homogenous India.
Notwithstanding, the Indian security fear of which Mr. Dev has mischaracterized is a fear of disproportionate robbery directed at them and the inability of this force to protect them. I have written about this and lamented the fact that there is a certain silence in the society regard the fact that the Indian business person is literally a dying breed in Guyana. My contention is that if Indian rights activists spent their progressive energies pressuring the PPP administration to direct resources and implement reforms necessary to professionalize and properly equip the GDS then we would not have a debate on the origin and nature of the Indian and African Guyanese security fear. If Roar and Mr. Dev can persuade rural young Indians to join the GDS this would be beneficial. We must refrain from using false arguments to accomplish this goal. My best guess is that with the poor salary and poor working conditions the GDS would not be a viable attraction for Indians when the available private sector offers better choices.
I prefer to ask Mr. Dev this question since I find his Sunday column interesting to read. What is Roar's position on ethnic reconciliation, and would he be willing to dedicate a few articles to this subject.
Ravi Dev Fiction
By Dennis Wiggins - March 25th. 2007
The
Editor
Kaieteur News
Georgetown, Guyana
The question of Indian Security Dilemma is a question that has been raised by Guyanese Indian rights activists on many occasions. It informs a discourse which states that the Indian fear in Guyana is partly founded on the premise that the Guyana Disciplined Services do not reflect the composition of Guyana's population, in other word, Indian Guyanese are not evenly represented in the GDS. This Indian Security Dilemma question was raised recently by one of its most ardent propositionists, Mr. Ravi Dev, in an article in Sunday Kaieteur News, captioned, Guyanese Friction, dated March 18, 2007. Were I to have captioned that article, I would have captioned it 'Ravi Dev's Fiction.'
Mr.Dev's missive, on the location of power, which is part of an ongoing and useful dialogue with Mr. Clarence Ellis, states "The Disciplined Forces are the ultimate repositories of the power of the Guyanese state: the PPP in being elected to government may accede to "authority" to deploy those forces - but when the loyalty of the latter is suspect, their authority rests on very shaky foundations." Mr. Dev went on, "The PNC, on the other hand, because of the "kith and kin" element, exercises some real power over the PPP because the latter is forced to observe "the principle of anticipated reactions" of the forces in all confrontations with the former."
What Mr. Dev is contending is that, since the composition of the GDS is made up of mostly African Guyanese, and since the members of the GDS vote overwhelmingly for the PNC then the GDS loyalty lie with the PNC/R and African Guyanese. This is a fundamental racial fear in a racialised state. This is also a type of thinking that has informed the PPP/C Government's attitude and policies towards the GDS and has ultimately jeopardized the security of not only Indian Guyanese for which Mr. Dev speaks but for all Guyanese.
But one should note that there is no Indian security dilemma that is not African security dilemma that is not Amerindian security dilemma that is not Guyanese security dilemma. Security is a fundamental national good that no racial group should be denied.
However, a close examination of the activities of the GDS would find that this fear is not only unfounded but it ignores other realities in the Guyanese society. Since the coming to power of the PPP/C led government in 1992, there has not been an instant where the GDS has shown disloyalty and or has posed a threat to the elected government. During the 1992, 1997 and 2000 PNC led demonstrations where there were pockets of racial attacks on PPP/C supporters, it was the GDS that were deployed by the PPP/C government to quell the disturbances. Theses forces during that time were unfairly brutal to the protestors, not discriminating against legitimate demonstrators and violent perpetrators, most of whom were African Guyanese. According to Mr. Dev's logics, if the loyalty of the GDS were to the PNC and African Guyanese, which he terms "Kith and Kin elements," one would have expected that the GDS would have stand by and allow these demonstrators to run amok. But Mr. Dev's logics do not take into account that, for decades Guyana Police Force have been extrajudically killing African Guyanese men. It has been demonstrated that the loyalty of this coercive apparatus of the state lie with those who control state power, in this case, the PPP/C Government.
This unfounded racial fear dictates the policies of the government as it relates to adequate funding of the GDS, which would give them the resources necessary to fight crime that is a constant threat to Guyana. You see this fear has allow the government since it came to power to grossly under fund the GDS. Members of the GPF operates under the poorest conditions in the Caribbean. They are grossly underpaid; operate from dilapidated police stations throughout the country; lack adequate facilities, which include vehicles, modern weaponry, body armor, communication devices etc., to properly enforce the law.
With the increase in drug activities and other criminal enterprises, the GPF has become no match for the criminals in terms of weaponry, mobile facilities and technology. It is under these poor conditions that the men and women of the GDS operate. Take for example, the criminals in Guyana is some cases are armed with the AK-47assault rifle, firing 7.62x39mm round. The GPF essentially use the same firearm and its derivative the M70 Assault Rifle (Yugoslavia), other firearm available to GPF are the 9mm Beretta, PM12s submachine gun (SMG, Italy), which give the police no range advantage over the criminals. The 2005 Robert Khan vs. the Police Commissioner debacle revealed that the criminals have surveillance advantage over the GPF. Moreover, the government is yet to implement the Guyana National Drug Strategy Master Plan for the period 2005 - 2009, which calls for increase funding for fighting crime. Drug activities and the gun for drug trade are on the increase. While the President boost that budgetary allocation for the GDS increased since the PPP came to power to the amount of 3.5 billion GYD, (his usually ploy when quoting dollar amounts is to use GYD currency to inflate its meaning) this amount is 17.5 million USD. Jamaica spends 40 million USD and Trinidad spends 66 million USD. But 17.5 million USD is only budgetary allocation, how much of this amount is actually spent is any one's guess. Judging from the conditions under which the GFP operates I would venture to say a mere faction.
Yet instead of raising these concerns some Indian rights activists like Mr. Dev sees it fit to complain about the composition of the GDS. It is true and I have written about this, that Indian Guyanese are under constant threat from criminals, especially on the East Coast. Notwithstanding, There is no evident that if the composition of the GDS changes this threat would evade. Without adequate funding and proper facilities, in an era of increase criminal activities, it is nearly impossible to effectively fight crime in any part of the world. The results in Guyana are that some members of GPF are on sale to the highest criminal bidder.
Indian Guyanese have been silence on this reality. The fact is that the Government of Guyana is allow to get away with anything since its constituency does not hold it accountable for anything, not even its own security. The Indian Security Dilemma is a question for the PPP/C led Government which receives most of its votes from Indian Guyanese. It is time that Indian rights activist lead a demonstration against the government on the issue of Indian security and stop using false arguments to deflect the real issue.
And please, any one who decides the reply to this letter, do not tell me about what went on under the PNC. I am not a historian. The PPP/C has been in power for almost 17 years.
Black Nationalism is a historical Struggle
for the proclamation of the
African humanity; cannot be blame for violence against Indians
By Dennis Wiggins - November 4th. 2006
Please permit me to respond to a letter which appeared in Kaieteur News under the caption Freddi's disatribe may still serve some useful purpose', dated 10/25/06, written by Walter H. Persaud." This intellectually sounding letter, if one examines it closely not only lacks epistemic credibility but it is a racist polemic which does absolutely nothing to advance the debate, and is one of many racist diatribes emanating from Guyanese expatriates under the pretence of academia.
Mr. Persaud in his letter resurrected Jacques Derrida, the French Philosopher to explain "violence at work in Caribbean Historical Discourse which informs Black Nationalism" This is a continuation of an argument that has been proposed by some Guyanese East Indians, that is; post colonial Black Nationalism which is reactionary, perpetuates violence against East Indians in the Caribbean, mainly Guyana and Trinidad. This thesis is an acrimonious assault on the historical struggle by Africans in the Diaspora to reclaim African people's humanity and a struggle against oppression and injustices meted out by Europeans. It is however pertinent, to remind those who advance the aforementioned argument that Black Nationalist, and their resultant revolts initiated the national liberation struggle that eventually led to the end of colonial rule in most of the Caribbean including Guyana and Trinidad.
But in order to dispel this argument one has to examine what is Black Nationalism and why it has come to be seen in the eyes of some East Indians as perpetuating violence against them in the contemporary Caribbean.
Robert Carr's introduction to Black Nationalism in the New World opens with a quote from George Lamming: "How you come to think of where you are, and how you come to think of your relation to where you are: this is very dependent on the character and the location of power as it exists where you are." The character and location of power in the Caribbean was one of colonialization, disenfranchisement and subjugation of non European peoples by European overlords (in the context of labor and capital). Therefore slavery, emancipation and the national liberation struggle which inform the discourse on Black Nationalism is what shaped the politics and history of the Caribbean. This Black liberation struggle was a reaction to European violence and the racial doctrine that justified white supremacy and black subjugation. But Black Nationalism is also a Pan African ideological, political and cultural phenomenon that regards Africa, Africans and African descendants as a unit. It glorifies the African past and inculcates pride in African values.
While the black liberation movement inevitably overwhelmed the Caribbean, the geographical relationship of power finds East Indian indentured immigrants, in a struggle to create a space for the retention of their cultural identity and to avoid the post colonial hybridity in the English speaking Caribbean. The black expression in its various forms that swept the post colonial Caribbean poses some problems justifiably so for them; that is, what it suggests about a place for East Indians in the culture and politics in the Caribbean. They often see themselves excluded from the Caribbean social identity which they perceived as formed in a black national consciousness, thus their fierce resistance to Caribbean creolisation. One has to recognize that outside of Guyana and Trinidad, East Indians are an invisible minority. But indeed in Guyana and Trinidad their contribution to national progress is as significant as any other ethnic group.
Walter H. Persaud is worried that Caribbean historians gave Africans an appointment with history while East Indians and others are supposed to be the cheerleaders. But if Mr. Persaud was indeed an academic he would know that experiences are usually recorded for history by the very people who live those experiences, as such, it is the Indian minority status in the Caribbean and lack of sufficient scholarship about the experiences of indentureship and struggle, as compared to the abundance of scholarship about the experiences of slavery, emancipation and the liberation struggles, and blacks contribution to the various arts (reggae, calypso etc.) that shaped the Caribbean social identity, which explains East Indian marginalization in the historical Caribbean discourse.
Not understanding this reality, Mr. Persaud's argument becomes more absurd when he chooses for African peoples in the Caribbean their heroes (Eric Gary, Eric Williams and our own LFS Burnham, Duvaliers, Bernard Coard and the Buxton gang) and concluded that these are the products of Black Nationalism. For this consummate academic, CLR James, Walter Rodney, George Lamming, Marcus Garvey etc., and their articulation for justice in the Caribbean multiethnic social identity does not exist, at least not in his shallow thinking on Black Nationalism.
In the historical struggle for proclamation of the African humanity, Mr. Persaud finds one of the most violent pitfalls of national consciousness. Well, those who proposed this argument have failed to defined violence. Is violence absent from the Indian consciousness? Mr Persaud when pressed by Freddi Kissoon, whom he has designated a spokesman for Black nationalism in Guyana (but is indeed one of the most fair and balanced academics and political commentators) has shown his narrow understanding of the definition of violence. Has Black Nationalism really inspired violence against Indians in Guyana? This is where the argument becomes epistemically incredible.
If Mr. Persuad and those who proposed this argument understand the sociological perspective on the relationship of poverty, unemployment, drugs and crime they would know that this perspective explains the emergence of the Buxton gang and not Black Nationalism. But it is not that they are not aware of this perspective and the reality of the disproportionality of poverty among African Guyanese, it is that in order to justify Indian electoral behavior and the corruption and ineptitude of an Indian led government in Guyana they must create a guilty race and victim-hood milieu. It matters not to them that the Buxton gang and others like them have been relentlessly condemned by Andyie, Eusi Kwayana, and Dr. David Hinds, all of whom are products of the national black consciousness but are also champions of multiethnic politics in the Guyanese society.
One has to be disingenuous not to recognize that there is a disproportionate assault on the Indian middle class in Guyana mainly by criminal megalomaniacs of which African Guyanese youths are the majority. However, this has nothing to do with Black Nationalism and every thing to do with poverty, unemployment; an environment of drugs and the opportunistic nature of crime. Nonetheless crime among East Indians in its various forms is also a reality in Guyana but it would be absolutely flawed to blame this on Indian cultural consciousness. The fact that Indian Guyanese are a disproportionate target is because of the perception of Indian wealth and the culture and storage of such wealth.
However crime is a problem not only for Indians but for African Guyanese also. The question is how do we as Guyanese find answers to this problem rather than to continue to propose the flawed guilty race and victim-hood argument. I have long ago proposed that the representatives of the various ethnic groups in Guyana establish a dialogue with the aim of finding solutions for this problem that is devastating the Guyanese society.
The PPP/C Inherited the PNC/R Economic
Recovery Program
By Dennis Wiggins - August 11th. 2006
It is with some amusement and interest that I read two letters in Stabroek News (SN), captioned 'The government inherited the country in despair in 1992'dated 08/06/06 written by Mr. Hydar Ally and 'Guyana is not as badly off as some claim', dated 07/27/06 written by Dr. Randy Persaud. I know this is election season and the pens of the propagandists will be in full writing mode. But there are certain fallacies that should not be allowed to stand.
Mr. Ally's letter listed a litany of woes that the PPP/C inherited when they took office in 1992, which he attributed to the PNC/R's 28 year rule. No one can honestly refute his fundamental argument; Guyana's economy from 1980 to 1989 was in state of deterioration. However, Mr. Alli in perpetuation of the PPP propaganda spin fails to acknowledge that in 1992, The PPP/C inherited a country in economic recovery. The PPP/C inherited the PNC/R and Hoyte's Economic Recovery Program. This program which was lunched in 1988, liberalized the economy by encouraging foreign direct investments and other free enterprises, privatized many state owned entities, removed most price controls, liberalized trade regulations, created a market exchange rate that injected much needed foreign exchange into the economy, removed restrictions on the independent media etc. By 1991 the government had cut its budget deficit in real terms. It is this recovery program that the PPP continued which was already approved by the International Monetary Fund (IMF). The PPP never sought to negotiate a new economic program with the IMF. With all the ground work laid for economic recovery, the PPP came to power in 1992. As a result of the ERP, real GDP grew, reaching 6 percent in 1996, one of the highest in the hemisphere. Because of the reforms and privatization that began in 1988, export earnings grew sharply due to expansion in agriculture and mining. It is important to mention that given no disaster and without new economic stimuli to sustain it, a sound economic program usually lasts for about 5 years. With the economy liberalized, in recovery and Guyana democratized, the government benefited substantially from debt reservicing and debt write offs (e.g. the 1998 HIPC initiative and many others that followed) thus enabling the reduction of the balance of payment deficits. The government also benefited from much developmental assistance made available for infrastructure and other development work. The fact is that, it was Desmond Hoyte and Carl Greenidge who were the planners and architects of Guyana's economic recovery in the 1990's. The questions that need to be asked are, did the PPP/C's management of the inherited economic program sustain economic growth? Did the PPP/C maximize developmental opportunities made available to it as a result of the economic recovery program?
Without any new initiatives and foreign investment to sustain and propel economic growth, the economy began to contract in the latter part of the 1990s' culminating in a negative 0.6 percent real GDP in 2003, positive 1.6 percent in 2004 and negative 2.5 percent in 2005. Export earnings began to decline. Much of this is because the economy in post 1997 did not benefit from any substantial revenue generating schemes. The Jagdeo administration has failed to implement fully, the Guyana Development Strategy, and as such there exists no sound program to sustain economic growth. The IMF and other financial creditors continue to prop up the financial side of the economy, but the productive side is declining steadily. What is keeping the Guyana economy from total collapse, are generous international donors and creditors, overseas remittances and the massive amount of inflows from drugs, cross border smuggling and money laundering activities.
This brings me to Dr. Randy Persaud's letter. Dr. Persaud has become an ardent supporter of the PPP administration, using his leverage as an academic in a leading American University. In one of the most misleading arguments I have read from an academic, Dr. Persaud uses UNDP Human development index (HDI) as a measurement of Guyana's progress, in order to make the case that some of us are guilty of what he terms "Political Overstreach." HDI is a composite index and like most indices is a measure of averages and therefore does not tell the real story of human poverty in real numbers. The fact that Guyana's HDI has moved from 679 in 1985 to 720 in 2005, is hardly a case for celebration, given Guyana's low population and vast economic potential. The government of Guyana has a small population to manage, and vast natural resources potential with which to manage it. This means that if the government of Guyana maximizes Guyana's development potential given the opportunities available to it, Guyana's HDI ranking should be far above (lower) median. Most of the countries that Guyana outranked on the HDI Scale have gone through severe civil wars, coup d'etat and or natural disasters (famine) and brutal dictatorship, none of which have measurably affected Guyana. Dr. Persaud would be interested to know that Guyana's HDI trends have increased since 1975 (with decreases in 1985 and 2005). 1975 (0.677); 1980 (0.683); 1985 (0.679); 1990 (0.697); 1995 (0.706); 2000 (0.724); 2002 (0.719) 2005 (0.720). Actually Guyana has dropped in rank from 104 in 1975 - 2002 to 107 in 2005. (Data source: http://hdr.undp.org/statistics/indices/). In fact all the countries HDIs have trended upward since 1975. So any country can make the case of improvement of human development.
In addition, HDI does not measure in real numbers the large amount of unemployment and underemployment that result in hopelessness and meaninglessness for thousands of Guyanese youths which are responsible for the high per capita crime rate in the country. Also while Guyana maintains a high literacy rate, the functional illiteracy is at an alarmingly high level. If Guyana is not as badly off as some of us make it out to be, why then is the migration rate so high (surely Guyanese must think differently?) Would Dr. Persaud leave his posh residents and big time job in DC and return to Guyana.
Some of the biggest threats to human development are corruption, mismanagement and ineptitude. These attitudes rob countries of much needed funds for education, healthcare and other developmental needs.