Thomas Jefferson, the great pioneer of democratic governance, once advised, “I never saw an instance of one or two disputants convincing the other by argument.” After three years of governance by the APNU/AFC coalition, it is clear that, contrary to their pre-election promise of engaging the Opposition with a view towards “shared governance” to address our political divide, they have not heeded Jefferson’s advice. It is also clear that they do not intend to change their modus operandi, and we are in danger of enduring another half-century of internecine acrimony.
In our estimation, we need direct communication between the various communities of Guyana. It has been shown all over the world that one of the approaches to making conflicts less destructive, and to begin the process of de-escalation, is to get the people whom the politicians purport to represent to understand why the others feel and act the way they do.
This cannot be done by exchanging attacks in the media, or on street corners, or in other public settings; not even in Parliament, as we have seen, where the political parties simply attack each other in attempt to prove themselves right and justify their very existence. No progress will come out of political gamesmanship. Rather, the communication must be done in a controlled setting, often with a third party mediator or facilitator who would help the actual people who are affected to communicate in more effective ways.
Some will say that we already have the Ethnic Relations Commission (ERC), which is supposed to be playing such a role in our society, and at great expense to the taxpayers. But the newly constituted ERC, after a decade-long hiatus, appears willing to disqualify itself, like its predecessor, primarily because of confusion over its role as a medium of communication for the various communities and the formulation of the message in those communications.
First, it has interpreted its mandate to improve inter-ethnic relations as by holding “consultations” with individual communities in their offices, and purporting to distil the findings and making recommendations about the way forward. This approach inevitably means that the ERC is utilising some framework for processing its “findings,” and in even framing the question it poses at its various fora. Who can say that its framework is not outcome determinative?
In our estimation, an ad-hoc group that demonstrated quite a broad and nationalistic approach towards resolving our intractable conflict has been the “Social Partners”, which was formed back in the early years of the new millennium, when our fractured politics broke out into open warfare. Comprised of representatives of the business community, the labour movement and the Bar Association, they worked very diligently to facilitate an approach on crime by the administration and the opposition during the heat of the crime wave.
While their efforts were doomed from the beginning because they were dealing with recalcitrant politicians, they impressed the populace by their broad and sincere outlook. We believe that the Social Partners ought to reconstitute themselves to perform the less onerous but immeasurably more vital role of facilitating a conversation between the peoples of the various communities. We are sure they will all be enlightened and inspired to then speak their “truth to power”, because they will realise that the power of the politicians is ultimately delegated by them.
It must be noted, however, that because the Social Partners would be facilitating inter-personal communications between individuals who have been stressed out and indoctrinated to the maximum by the warring politicians, it is important that they obtain the services of individuals who are trained in this area. Even in the best of circumstances, communication takes place between individuals, and this relational aspect can present problems, since the people implicitly offer definitions of themselves and the “other” that are inevitably subjective and can raise hackles.
Guyana is on the cusp of becoming a significant oil producer, which could remove the economic impetus for inter-group conflict. If those groups can hone a common purpose, we can all enjoy the “good life”.
