Dear Editor,
Mike Persaud makes reference to my advocacy of power sharing arguing that it will not work as a solution to institutionalised ethnic conflict in Guyana. He feels making parties multi-ethnic is the solution, but he did not say how ethnic parties can be transformed into multi-ethnic. An attempt at multi-ethnic party was tried in 1950 to 1955 and collapsed, and since then several efforts by prominent respected figures were made at forming multi-ethnic parties with all failing. No one seriously opposes the idea of multi-ethnic parties; even conservative American Senators John McCain and Lindsay Graham feel their Republican party should be multi-ethnic, and they have tried but failed to transform their party from being seen as a White party. Yes, PPP and PNC should become multi-ethnic. But one must offer concrete proposals on how it can be done. Multi-ethnic nations around the world are waiting for the magic proposal to establish multi-ethnic entities, as well as to solve their ethnic conflicts.
Persaud says if PNC elects an Indian and PPP elects an African as leader, the ethnic conflict will be solved and both parties will become multi-ethnic. Cases in other societies (Fiji, Mauritius, Kenya, Trinidad, etc) do not support that thesis as the idea was tried and polarisation only worsened. But it may work in Guyana or even in Trinidad. Persaud must now tell us how a Mike Persaud or a David Hinds can become leader of the PNC and PPP respectively. What should the party members or leadership of the party do to get each one elected and accepted by supporters? Should other candidates stand down and leave one candidate only? Should Indians decline nomination in PPP or Africans in PNC? Or should Indians in PPP and Africans in PNC avoid avoiding? What should the candidates themselves do to get elected in an ethnic party that is not of his/her ethnicity? I remind Persaud that it is alleged that Dr Jagan coerced PPP members in the 1963 party convention to vote for Brindley Benn as Chair and deputy leader of PPP; fraud was also alleged to prevent an Indian from defeating Benn. Basdeo Panday tried the same strategy to elect a Black Chair of the UNC; it failed and further polarised the country. Should the Jagan or Panday method be tried? If the out-group candidate is rejected by ethnic members in a democratic election, as has been the case in Guyana since 1955, what next?
Initially, I was hesitant about the concept of power sharing. But from thorough studies and analysis of ethnic conflict in many countries, I endorse the idea of power sharing – in which no ethnic group is excluded from sharing in the exercise of power based on its size (political support) in the government. Power should be shared not only at central level, but at the local level as well.
In other words, power must be decentralised and devolved towards the local administrative units as in Switzerland. There must be vertical and horizontal division of powers with very little power going to the centre. Politicians in Guyana have tended towards authoritarianism, corruption and furthering racial polarisation because all power is concentrated in the hands of the central executive; they manipulate ethnic supporters. If power is removed from the centre and given to the local communities, politicians become powerless, ethnic conflict will be reduced and corruption will cease to exist. Self-serving political figures will no longer want to be career politicians because they won’t be able to rape the treasury.
Persaud is right that neither PPP nor PNC has shown much interest in ethnic power sharing. In fact, both claim multi-ethnic party status and that they share power – fooling themselves. PPP cites Kwame McCoy, Juan Edghill, Lumumba, etc, to support their position that the party is multi-ethnic and as sharing power when in government; those figures can’t speak for Africans. PNC cites Rupert Roopnarine, Ronald Bulkan and Amna Ally to bolster a claim of PNC (APNU) being a multi-ethnic party; those figures can’t speak for Indians as they are not elected by Indians. As Persaud correctly stated, AFC’s Moses Nagamootoo and Khemraj Ramjattan were chosen by Indians to be spokespersons for them in power sharing with the PNC. But the two lost their voice and Indians now view them as “traitors”. As Persaud rightly analysed, the AFC will be rejected by Indians in the next elections because of its perceived failure to speak up on behalf of Indians.
Power sharing has never been really tried in Guyana. Power sharing is when the ethnic groups get their fair share in government. It has to be specified in the constitution and enforced through some mechanism (with a balance of power at various levels as in Switzerland) just in case a bully emerges as executive leader of the nation. And executive (titular) leadership has to be rotated as well. In power sharing, I am not suggesting that Amerindians, Mixed, Chinese and Portuguese should be excluded from power sharing.
Persaud stated some incorrect information about Suriname and Switzerland. In Suriname, riots and chaos were not the precursors to the Bouterse military coups (1980 and 1990); there was stability in 1980 and the February coup was a shocker even for the CIA and Dutch Intelligence. Asked to comment on the coup, Dr Jagan stated that he felt Henck Aaron was planning to rig the upcoming election (due in 1980) to pre-empt Jaggernauth Lachman from a victory. That triggered Bouterse to effect the coup to forestall the installation of a Lachman government.
With regards to Switzerland, Persaud’s statement that each ethnic group lives within its own canton is incorrect. I visited Switzerland several times, most recently two years ago, and I have studied its political structure (in post-graduate courses at NYU) as the ideal one for multi-ethnic states. Contrary to what Persaud pens, there is no pure ethnic canton (administrative unit) in Switzerland. I travelled on a train from Budapest to Switzerland interacting with French, Italian and German, and Roman Swiss; they seem to get along nicely among themselves although they may not like each other. Almost all of the 26 cantons (local governments) are multi-ethnic, and power is shared by all of the multi-ethnic groups at the centre, as well as the local level (equivalent of our Regions, municipalities, village council, neighbourhood councils, etc). In Switzerland, no ethnic group dominates at any level even though parties themselves may be ethnic. Whether a party is ethnic or not, and in Switzerland there are multiple parties representing each ethnic group, power is shared by all. And that is ideal for Guyana, as well as for all multi-ethnic states. Why should one ethnic group dominate?
Yours truly,
Vishnu Bisram
