As usual, our democratic practice of political parties going on the hustings (where candidates in an election address potential voters to convince them of their suitability for office) has increased the simmering polarisation of our society into antagonistic camps with ethnic cores. This is inevitable because it has been shown that once we “choose sides” – as partisans of the several parties would have done – some rather atavistic instincts kick in as we struggle for “our” side to win. Ours up to now has been ethnicity.
In the modern era, these proclivities were supposed to be tempered by democratic institutions and practices, especially in their liberal variant. But they have stubbornly persisted because humans, pace liberalism’s premises, do not only act out of cold, rational calculus. Some leaders exploit the extant predispositions, feelings, and emotions that coalesce in group solidarities, exclusions, and antagonisms. All societies are therefore “plural” to a lesser or greater degree, leading to the introduction of political parties to represent the “parts” of the society. In our Guyanese plural society, where our divisions are not just around economic class issues but include ethnicity and religion – going to the very heart of ascriptive identities – the emotional effects are with us in spades because of some competing values.
Consequently there remains the latent tendency for our political struggles – and all the other struggles are ultimately over questions of power and so “political” – to careen out of control and spill into violence, which the democratic institutions were supposed to obviate. There is now a school of thought that accepts this tendency of humans to cleave into groups that manifest hostility towards each other: it is called “agonism”. Here, rather than treating each other as enemies to be obliterated, the “other” is to be considered as adversaries with positions we cannot agree on but yet respect. Agonistic politics aim to challenge and channel competition in non-destructive, institutionalised ways. If this is not done, then violence will erupt periodically, or large sections of some subaltern groups will have to be locked away. The goal is not to find consensus at any cost but to manage dissensus.
Against that background, we repeat our warnings that those in the Opposition reject the logic of our changed demographics that have presented us with the happy circumstance that we are now a nation of ethnic minorities, where no single “part” and its representative “party” can agglomerate a majority to take office on its own. Parties must now reach across the various divides with policies, programmes and personnel that are inclusive rather than exclusive. As such, it was rather disheartening to hear the extremist anti-Indian rhetoric of David Hinds and Tacuma Ogunseye that not only eschewed such an approach for the opposition parties but also condemned the PPP for overtly practising it.
With their rump WPA now coalesced with the major opposition party – the PNC – there is the inevitable tendency for the latter to adopt their exclusionary stance. This is especially likely when PNC leader Norton not only refused to reject Hinds’ derogatory term “BT lickers” for African Guyanese who joined the PPP but also described the demagogue as “intelligent”. Additionally, the overall thrust of the major Opposition party’s campaign is very incendiary and visceral, focusing on describing the African Guyanese condition in very dire, apocalyptic terms rather than stressing the opportunities that abound to be seized. And if there are instances of discrimination, which are sure to exist even if they are systematic, then there are the judicial institutions with constitutional imprimatur that can be resorted to rather than using Scrapeheads to create mayhem.
Thus far from saying that we should have a love fest going, I am suggesting the ever-present simmering hostility ought not to be fanned but given expression institutionally. Worse, it ought not to be moralised as a struggle between “good” and “evil” as is presently the case. This reinforces the feeling that the “other” is the “enemy” to be eliminated. No one gains when there are explosions. More pertinently, for peaceful political change, open hostilities scare away key constituencies that can secure victory of the “other”.
The experience with our democratic institutions in 2011, 2015 and 2020 shows the promise that any of the parties of the “parts” can assume office. Let us reject the rabble-rousers and enjoy our democratic peace.
