While “equality” has become the mantra of the age, inequality has increased to such a degree that, in the US, the mecca of the egalitarian society, one per cent of their population owns more wealth than the remaining 99%. While in Guyana matters are not as dire, our underdeveloped state makes our existing inequalities even more incendiary, because they can be exploited by political entrepreneurs. One of the reasons is that the matter is partly semantic: “equality” being one of those laudatory words which are constantly invoked, even though its users are not clear as to what it means.
Most will agree with the statement that we are all “equally human”, but isn’t that a mere tautology? We are not equally tall, strong, intelligent or beautiful, so whither equality? For the term to have any content, we have to choose any area of endeavor, or personal attribute, or of treatment, and then discuss whether or not we are all equal in terms of the identified criteria.
Equality from this perspective has therefore to be contingent on the context or criteria wherein we speak: equality is a triadic relationship. We may talk about three types of equality – those pertaining to personal characteristics, to treatment and to distribution. The last two categories are relevant to politics, and we need to be clear about them, because it is becoming literally a life and death situation in Guyana.
There are some theories of equality that are purely formal; they specify no substantive content, but are simply a formula or policy. Statements such as “equality before the law” — the much-sought-after “equal treatment” — falls under this category: no questions arise as to what was the content of the law. Formal equality demands only consistency. But “equal treatment”, while not sufficient for delivering the substantive equality to which most citizens aspire, is a necessary prerequisite for achieving the latter. Today, there is a widespread perception by those groups that have not been traditional supporters of the PNC that they are not receiving “equal treatment” from state initiatives in the award of contracts, scholarships, jobs, development of communities, etc.
It is generally accepted that, in any society, some inequalities will be morally permissible. In Guyana, these are questions that have to be debated and agreed on. Normally the rewards or punishment from one’s efforts (desserts) are also seen as permissible, even if not equally distributed. Once those that are not defensible have been identified, then the state/society has to decide what to do about them. Items identified from the latter category at some time or place have been political power, opportunity for scarce resources, welfare or social position, social position/class, economic resources, welfare, etc.
Most recently, the African Cultural & Developmental Association (ACDA) has bitterly complained about the 13.8% of land allocated to Indigenous Peoples via our Independence Agreement with Britain. This is only the tip of the iceberg, and in Guyana, questions of the equality of wealth, social status, and political and economic parity are just as intensely contested between the ethnic groups in the society. This is because some are not satisfied with “equality of treatment” – they want ‘equality of results”. In this instance, the inherent inequalities of effort, talent, inheritance etc, are overlooked by the aspirant, and “equality of results’is supposed to flow like manna from heaven.
Politicians and other leaders have to level with their constituents that there is no inbuilt mechanism that guarantees all applicants will have equal life chances. The question, therefore, is for all the people of the society to decide whether the still surviving inequalities are, or are not, morally permissible. If the latter is decided on, then there may be affirmative action programmes or other compensating policies initiated.
In Guyana, where there have been historically determined structural conditions that undergird some inequalities, there may be the need for affirmative action programmes to rectify these imbalances; for instance, in the composition of the bureaucracy, the disciplined services.
