Latest update March 28th, 2024 12:59 AM
Sep 25, 2011 Features / Columnists, Ravi Dev
The ongoing drama playing out in the courts about alleged “ideological racism” contrasts with the studied refusal of the political elite to deal frontally with the problematic of race in politics. One of the stumbling blocks is the lack of conceptual clarity on how to deal with the (thankfully, at least) now acknowledged ethnically-oriented voting. The reflexive response has been the insistence on forming what are dubbed, “multi-racial” parties. And here the problems began anew.
What is a “multi-racial” party? Is it one in which the leaders are drawn from all or most of the various racial/ethnic blocs that constitute our polity? Is it one that has members drawn from all the various groups? Does the proportion have to roughly mirror the population or will any assorted agglomeration do? Or does it mean that the interests of all the groups must be expressly articulated and represented? Should those interests be subsumed under some notion of a “national” interest? Who defines that “national” interest? And so on.
In Guyana, all of the parties in Guyana before ROAR, claimed that they were “multiracial”. They took special pains to have individuals from all the major race groups in their executive and courted votes from across the spectrum. They constructed “national” manifestos. Yet when it came to elections, the majority of the people invariably voted for one of the two major parties which were firmly identified with specific ethnic bloc – the PPP with Indians and the PNC with Africans. This even occurred with the carefully crafted “multiracial” AFC in 2006. So the question is posed again: “What is an “authentic” multiracial party?”
The question harks back to the roots of what constitutes “representation” in our “representative democracy”. The favoured approach, from both the old Liberal and Marxist ideologies was the “representation of ideas”. That is, once the interests of the group are articulated then anyone could “speak” for the group. By constructing “national” platforms in personnel and content, both the PPP and the PNC – and now the AFC – claimed to be capable of speaking for “all”. Yet, based on the results of elections, it is obvious that there was some way the people were getting “ethnic” signals as to which party better represented their interests.
ROAR’s insertion into Guyanese politics occurred in the immediate pre-1992 years and the free and fair elections of that year proved its thesis that “multiracial” voting remained the exception in Guyana. At that time, as articulated in our 1990 paper, “For a New Political Culture” we proposed representative, professionalised disciplined forces and temporary Shared Governance – segueing into federalism – to address the ethnic concerns over power. If the status quo was retained, our theory predicted ethnic violence, which unfortunately came to pass.
So how do we arrive at “multiracial” politics that can represent all the groups to their satisfaction? We thought it was self evident that the parties that the various ethnic groups selected via their votes should come together and work on a program that combined their several platforms. We still believe that this is the way to begin and then work towards a federal approach, which would need the trust engendered during a period of working together.
But a final piece of semantic confusion still remains apart from the need for political will. This is the evident distaste by the political parties to acknowledge that they are “ethnically” based. The greatest irony is that this acknowledgement, coupled with the acceptance to work together would result in the formation of “multiracial” governance, which, after all is what the goal of all their politics is supposedly all about. The “multiracial” party was supposed to only be a way-station to the “multiracial” government, wasn’t it?
A multiracial/multiethnic party must explicitly articulate the interests of the several constituent groups it purports to represent. This is done, as in the Democratic party in the US, by having specific “caucuses” for African and Hispanic voters. There is no shame in this or apologies to be made. It is now conceded that in addition to the old “representation of ideas” there is the need for “representation by presence” especially for those who have been excluded or have experienced unique defining experiences. Can’t we at least go this far in Guyana?
“Representation by presence” by its operation, has its own liberating potential. There are some who sincerely want to belong to “non-racial” parties, but I do not think we can ever create this unicorn in Guyana. Where has it been created? We have to work with the material we have: politics has to be pragmatic, in the philosophical sense of the word. We have a polity that, as far as national politics is concerned, divides its interests racially/ethnically. Let’s take our heads out of the sand.
THIS IDIOT TELLING GUYANA WE HAVE NO SAY IN THE 50% PROFIT SHARING AGREEMENT WE HAVE WITH EXXON.
Mar 28, 2024
Minister Ramson challenge athletes to better last year’s performance By Rawle Toney Kaieteur Sports – Guyana’s 23-member contingent for the CARIFTA Games in Grenada is set to depart the...B.V. Police Station Kaieteur News – The Beterverwagting Police Station, East Coast Demerara (ECD) will be reconstructed... more
By Sir Ronald Sanders Kaieteur News – In the face of escalating global environmental challenges, water scarcity and... more
Freedom of speech is our core value at Kaieteur News. If the letter/e-mail you sent was not published, and you believe that its contents were not libellous, let us know, please contact us by phone or email.
Feel free to send us your comments and/or criticisms.
Contact: 624-6456; 225-8452; 225-8458; 225-8463; 225-8465; 225-8473 or 225-8491.
Or by Email: [email protected] / [email protected]