In Guyana, the various ethnic groups – Portuguese, Indians and Chinese – with the exception of the Amerindians were brought by the Whites from all parts of the world to replace the Africans after the abolition of slavery in 1834. Separated chronologically to a great extent, they were segregated into separate economic and geographical niches with profound and lasting consequences for their future relationships. While the separation may have prevented sustained contact and possible clashes, it further reinforced the initial cleavages of race/ethnicity, language, religion and culture to demarcate social boundaries, which were distinct and have proven long lasting.
At the end of indentureship in 1917, the society was vertically stratified, with ethnicity and class coinciding in a given stratum. The Whites were at the apex followed in descending order by the Coloureds, Portuguese, Chinese, Africans, East Indians and Amerindians. It was almost the paradigmatic structural hierarchical plural society, with the ethnic groups differentially integrated into the power structure. This differential integration provided dynamism for change as each group tried to improve their position. It was not difficult to foresee that “culture” would become a stalking horse for “power”.
Guyanese politics, like all politics, is rooted in the structure of the society and the rules of the political game. The nature of the “faction” influences the political culture; political competition and any political conflict. Unfortunately, the nature of the salient cleavage continues to be a contested topic in Guyana. While most countries are multicultural, and the cultural differences may be the most common axis of differentiation and even political cleavage between the groups, the societies do not all inevitably become as divided as Guyana and a number of other countries have become. In fact, they have earned themselves a special name in political science: deeply divided societies. The major variables in determining the difference in the intensity of the politics and whether the conflict may become undemocratic in multi-ethnic societies have been the rules of political competition, the relative sizes of the groups, the resources at their disposal, and the strategies of their leaders.
In a word, before any attempt to craft a stable democracy in Guyana, an appreciation of the nature of the social groups in Guyana is essential to evaluate the claims of our politicians as to the nature of the social cleavage that is most pertinent in structuring our political competition and participation. If the competitors for political power do not share a common framework for conceptualising their struggle, they would simply be talking past each other in any attempt at reconciliation. It is a commonplace view that political mobilisation is always done along some actual or potential fault-line, which creates political factions in every society.
In Guyana, as mentioned earlier, the cultural differences and origins (ethnicity) co-joined with “race” evolved as the most pertinent marker for political mobilisation and in Guyana, the terms are used interchangeably. In his seminal work, Fredrik Barth argued that the defining feature of an ethnic group is not the particular elements of culture or kinship that differentiate it from other groups, but the mere fact that boundaries are perceived and persist. The membership criteria and the membership itself tend to change over time as people come and go and invent or develop new traditions and ways of life, but the group itself nevertheless endures as a way of structuring social life. This is a very important point in Guyana where some observers have pointed out that all the groups here share so many cultural features in common – especially language, we should not speak of Guyana as “multicultural”.
In a world of scarce resources and all-pervasive governments, ethnic political entrepreneurs do not find it difficult to persuade fellow group members that their social, economic and identity interests are better served if their group controls the State – that is if they unite their political interests. The affirmation of themselves as a people and the economic interest served mutually reinforce each other.
The National Conversation must not be facile.
