Posted February 23rd. 2003- By David Hinds
Paper Presented at Guyana Forum on Conflict Resolution Howard University December 14, 2002

I thank the organizers of this forum for a most patriotic act. It is an act of necessity. The developments in Guyana, especially over the last five years, warrant every possible sober intervention. We who have been tasked, through opportunity and perhaps social location, with the responsibility of shaping ideas to aid wider social motion or as Kwayana so perceptively puts it "take the people's experiences, refine them, and give them back to the people as a kind of ideological nourishment" have not always honorably discharged that responsibility. More often than not, we have taken the people's experiences, refined them, but instead of giving them back to the people, we have appropriated them as symbols of our personal and collective intellectual virility. This act of piracy has helped to frustrate our people's ability to collectively reproduce themselves in cultural and political-economic terms, which in turn has negatively informed the quality of both the state and society.

I am making a link here between the behavior of most of our intellectual workers and the persistent degeneration of state and society in Guyana and the rest of the Anglophone Caribbean. If we are products of the struggle of the down-pressed to rid itself of institutionalized impoverishment, as most of us are, then we have a duty to live out the Rodneyite principle of the academic being at the service of the masses. That we have more often than not helped to further institutionalize mass cynicism and impoverishment, by cheerleading the status quo or engaging in detached scholarship, is beyond doubt. But the conditions in Guyana thrust upon us the responsibility to reverse that trend. It is in this spirit that I approach this forum and urge all of us to similarly engage.

I begin by making some general observations. First, one cannot divorce the present from the past and hope to achieve a proper understanding of the current problems in Guyana. But I caution that while history is indispensable to development, distorted or selective history is counterproductive. From a historical standpoint, the centrality of authoritarianism to Guyana's development is an important source of a proper understanding of the country's present dilemma. The authoritarian state and political culture are, for example, key to understanding the summary execution of young African Guyanese men over the years.

While CY Thomas in his classic work, The Rise of the Authoritarian State in the Periphery, locates the post-colonial Caribbean state in this authoritarian tradition, other scholars have located it in the liberal democratic tradition largely on account of the region's relatively good record in maintaining the formal democratic forms such as periodic competitive elections and constitutionalism. I agree with Dr Thomas thesis, but taking into consideration the formal democratic forms, I want to tinker a bit with his formulation and label the Caribbean state inherited at independence "liberal authoritarian." Liberal, in the sense that the decolonization process brought with it important reforms to the colonial state that freed up some space for mass action and potential democratization. Authoritarian, in the sense that the foundations of the colonial state, these reforms notwithstanding, remained intact.

While most of the Anglophone Caribbean states generally remained at the liberal authoritarian stage or moved slightly in the direction of more authoritarianism, by undermining some of the formal democratic forms, Guyana decisively moved very far and rapidly away from this liberal authoritarian state to a more advanced form of authoritarianism that could accurately be described as a dictatorship. This is of primary importance to our project. For this journey down the dictatorial road cemented the historical separation between the state and society that was in time transformed into a case of state vs. society. The journey also saw the removal of the already thin line between government and state. Hence the inseparability of party and state that has persisted and may have been strengthened since the removal of the PNC from office.

My second observation is that although the leaders of one race managed the Burnhamist state and did practice particular forms of discrimination against the other race, the state itself did not discriminate in terms of its use of coercion as a method of control. This explains why extra judicial killings of Africans by the police were as prevalent in the PNC years as it is under the PPP.

My third observation is that with the removal of the dictatorial hand, this state ironically succumbed to racial polarization. Although it has maintained its separation from the society at large, insofar as it intervenes in the society, it does so as a racial agent. This weakens the state as its legitimacy is compromised; half of the society automatically rebels against it. No democratic or non-dictatorial state can survive without legitimacy, which is conferred by the vast majority of citizens. This weakened state has serious implications for law and order as the current events reveal.

My fourth observation has to do with the division of the society along racial lines. This division has frustrated the emergence of nationhood. Guyana is in effect two entities or pre-nations living within the same border. The end product is a nation state in name only. In actual fact, Guyana is a weak, racially non-neutral state without a cohesive nation. The implications of this are enormous.

My fifth observation is that the correction of this deformed state of affairs has never been seriously tackled as an overarching consideration. Reconciliation has always been sought on the terms of one side or the other, which in effect makes it an exercise in counter-reconciliation. The attitude has been one of securing control of government and state, and then seek reconciliation from that position of "strength." It is for this reason that attempts at reconciliation and unity have yielded a more divided nation and a less legitimate state.

My sixth observation is that where persons and or groups outside of the power structures have attempted to engage the issue of reconciliation they invariably do so not as conversation but as argument over which side has been morally as political responsible for the ongoing crisis of governance and society. This in effect has compromised the emergence of civil society.

Finally, the state in Guyana is currently in critical condition. It is caving in under the burden described above. The arms of the state are being merged into criminal gangs, narco cartels, armed resistance, and local mafias. Guyana is headed in the direction of Colombia or pre-Taliban Afghanistan.

Now to some proposals for solutions. Given the wide-ranging nature of Guyana's problem, the solution must be equally wide-ranging: there is no single solution to the problem. Since I belong to the Political Science fraternity, my proposals will be confined to the political.

First, the state has to be rescued and be made to perform the functions that all states perform such as provision of law and order, and promotion of equality and freedom. Second, the nation has to be allowed to emerge from its racial prisons. Third, state and nation have to be reunited or united as a single phenomenon. Fourth, there has to be a restructuring of the relationship between state and government. This is a task that requires sober thought and action, national vision, and a commitment to shared existence.

One way to begin is to reconstitute the rules of governance with an eye on racial peace, political and economic democracy and empowerment, cultural regeneration, and laying the building blocks of a national ethos. I have been part of the tendency that has argued for power sharing or shared governance as one way to kick-start this process. Power sharing remains the best chance to date of mediating the conflict, for it holds out the promise of meaningful inclusiveness in the national decision-making process. Sharing the burden of governance does the following:

1. It relieves the burden of a divided state.

2. It diminishes the racial competition for government by making elections a low intensity event.

3. It democratizes government and state by ensuring that all those affected by decisions contribute to making them.

4. It encourages consensus rather than adversarial attitude to politics.

5. It legitimizes state and government, as all of society will feel a stake in them.

6. It frees up the people from political stress so that they can engage in shaping a national ethos.

Power sharing, for me, means sharing of power at the top (horizontal power sharing) and between the top and the bottom (vertical power sharing). Key to this is executive power sharing, separation of powers to allow for a strong and independent legislature and judiciary, and decentralization of power in the form of meaningful local government such as village councils.

Advocates of power sharing are in a strong position, since their arrangements have not been attempted. On the other hand one party rule has been attempted and for whatever reason has failed patently. To say that its failure is due to intransigent government or to subversive opposition is really unhelpful. We still have not done anything about the failure.

However, the developments since February 2002, the accompanying deterioration of race relations, and the further weakening of the state, have seriously jeopardized any realistic chance of hammering out any constructive and binding agreement. Although the PNC has finally embraced power sharing, its significance has been overshadowed by the continued instability.

For power sharing negotiations to yield anything positive, the country has to be first normalized. Trust has to breathe again. People have to feel safe again. The armed gangs have to be disarmed. The coercive arm of the state has to be reconstituted. Law and order based on the rule of law has to be restored.

This is not a retreat from power sharing; it is an attempt to create fertile ground for it. It is an extension of the power sharing project to include what I call the preparatory phase. It is also a recognition that dogmatism is a great enemy to reconciliation and conflict resolution. Even though we strongly advocate a given position or solution we should not get entrapped in it as though it were the only possible road to a solution. Both power sharers and majoritarians must consider this enlightened flexibility.

Informed by recent experience, we should perhaps try to pose the issues afresh. I propose in this preparatory phase to take a "clearing" approach-clear the overburden that is sure to inhibit the flowering of power sharing. Judaman Seecoomar has reminded us that at the bottom of ethnic conflict is the energetic pursuit of "human needs." Take each side seriously. Each side is attempting to impress on society and to achieve the needs of its constituencies. If we agree that there is sufficient truth in this assumption, then we have a duty to arrange for an orderly expression and articulation of these needs.

What are needs? Seecomar says need covers more than material goods and social goods. They include cultural questions, need for dignity, and many other things. It is arbitrary for one to decide on these needs for another without a public airing and discussion on what those needs are or ought to be. In this regard, Burton's suggestion, with which Seecomar agrees, of the need for conflict-solving workshops should be taken up.

One of the first needs is conversation; conversation by any means necessary. But these conversations must address the fundamental issues of racial security and the management of power. What are the real obstacles to conversation? Violence is an obstacle and yet conversation can perhaps help reduce violence.

Is there a real grievance, which has helped to propel the current violence at least in its origins? Yes, the Black Clothes or Special Squad and their executions. This elite unit of the Guyana Police Force has disgraced itself. Parts of it have joined with foreign offenders against Guyanese. On December 4, 2002, part of it was again caught in illegal clandestine activity with a so-called "phantom force." The Black Clothes must be reined in, if not abolished. Reining in this force will help take the element of retaliation out of the current violence. This will leave naked crime and drug related crime both exposed and without cover.

After disbanding or reconstituting the Black Clothes, the authorities must move swiftly to disarm the population of illegal firearms by offering amnesty and rehabilitation for surrender of weapons. Since crime has become political, it is all the more urgent to remove the real basis of grievances affecting suspects.

I also propose that this conference sets up a standing committee to seek the joint consent of the government and opposition to draft a code of inter-party behavior. One party cannot do the task of restoring normalcy. Decisions must have the confidence of both major actors. This committee should also be empowered to consult with other Guyanese with conflict resolution knowledge and with CARICOM to start a Guyana Watch that will help monitor a ceasefire.

Finally, going hand in hand with the above approach, I propose the convening of intra-group conversations among Africans and Indians, and perhaps the Amerindians culminating with a summit of all three groups. This should be an ongoing exercise. These conversations should have at their core a frank discussion of what the real needs and problems of the individual groups are and how best these can be tackled internally and in consort with the other groups. These conversations will help to analyze some of the questions that are at the core of the conflict between the two races.

For Africans, the questions that should be addressed include:

(1) Is African marginalization simply political discrimination against African businesspeople seeking contracts or similar discrimination against the African elite or is it the historical discrimination against the African poor and the powerless?

(2) What are the economic and political causes of African marginalization?

(3) How have the post-colonial political and economic orders deterred or enhance African marginalization?

(4) How does the presence of other races, in particular East Indians, affect this process?

(5) How have the internal structural and cultural weaknesses of the African community affected the process?

(6) What is the real meaning of the last ten years for African Guyanese?

(7) What is the meaning of 28 years of PNC rule for African Guyanese?

(8) What needs to be done by Africans themselves and by African in concert with others to deal with their marginalization?

(9) What should be the role of the African Guyanese political elite and the African Guyanese intellegencia in the process?

(10) What should be the relationship between these two groups and the African masses? (11) What should be the relationship between African Guyanese and Indian Guyanese?

(12) Is the African view of Indians in Guyana a correct one?

A major question that Indians must address is whether the Indian attitude to Africans, both from a cultural and political standpoint, has always been positive. The question that should be posed is whether Indians, in the process of passively and actively responding to what is widely believed to be African disrespect and bullying, have not developed their own form of counter-degeneracy. Some questions that Indians must discuss include:

(1) Is the violence against Indians simply a reflection of the bully in the African or is it a product of the historical inter-racial conflict?

(2) Is it really true that Africans have always bullied Indians?

(3) Is the PNC behavior since 1997 due simply to the fact that they are sore losers and don't adhere to democratic rules?

(4) What is the real meaning of the 28-year PNC rule for Indians? Did the PNC really discriminate in its use of force and violence?

(5) How must Indians deal with the constituency of Africans who have spoken out against African domination?

(6) To what extent has the last decade of PPP rule benefited Indians?

(7) Is the African cry of marginalization without merit? V

References

Eusi Kwayana, Interview in "The Terror and the Time" (1977)

Judaman Seecoomar, Contributions towards the Resolution of Conflict in Guyana, Papal Tree Press (2002)

Clive Thomas, The Rise of the Authoritarian State in Peripheral Societies, Monthly Review Press (1984)