Removing inequalities

In the wake of the just-presented 2026 budget, there have been charges of continued “marginalisation” of African Guyanese in the present oil-fuelled dispensation by elements in the APNU/PNC camp. While as usual they might be deployed opportunistically to retain relevance after their decimation by WIN, the charges cannot be rejected out of hand. It should be obvious to even the most casual observer of the Guyanese scene that there remain ethnic imbalances in many spheres of the nation’s life – be it in the public or private sector. The pertinent question that must be answered, however, is whether the imbalances arose – and are being maintained – through the operation of discriminatory practices. If they are, then the Government must move to remove such imbalances. If there are no present discriminatory practices but past ones that have worked to create imbalances, then the Government has to make decisions on how to rectify matters. Should they adopt affirmative action programmes? Should they set quotas or just broad goals? Are imbalances in the state sector to be treated in the same manner as those in the private sector? How many personal preferences are due to past discriminatory practices? Whose responsibility is it to change personal preferences?
Interestingly, in 2004, a constitutionally mandated Disciplined Forces Commission adopted this approach and examined the imbalances in those institutions – where Indian Guyanese were overwhelmingly under-represented because of historical discriminatory recruitment practices identified as far back as 1965 by an ICJ intervention – which must be rectified. Unfortunately, the very specific recommendations on recruitment and retention were never implemented, and unsurprisingly, the imbalances persist. The charges from African Guyanese activists focus on the lower participation of members of their community in the business sector, which has now become increasingly relevant on account of the explosion of opportunities there. After avoiding explicit acknowledgement of ethnic imbalances in general because of its Marxist ideology, the PPP has now abandoned that lens and has been aggressively unfurling initiatives geared towards increasing the participation of African Guyanese in the business sector.
The point is that we cannot avoid a discussion of marginalisation in Guyana, but it must be done in a structured manner and not merely be exploited – as it is being done by some elements of the APNU/PNC/WPA combined – to prod African Guyanese into taking up arms. It must be done to bring justice and equity to all groups in Guyana. For instance, in the implementation of the norms of equality and equity – and to determine if violations are causing marginalisation – the two concepts that have been utilised in other jurisdictions, especially the USA, can be deployed here. Firstly, there is the standard of “equal treatment”. Here, individuals equally situated are to be treated equally: the focus is on the individual and not the group. The decision-maker should be colour-blind. In a frequently used analogy, individuals would be competitors in a footrace, with the winner being the one who runs the fastest. A meritocracy would be created where effort and rewards are commensurate.
The footrace analogy, however, points to the problem with the “equal treatment” standard and suggests the second concept – equal opportunity. To extend the analogy, it was pointed out that while everyone might now theoretically be starting from the same point, the legs of some might have been broken historically simply because they belonged to a particular group. The results would thus be a foregone conclusion. As such, it is considered appropriate to then consider the race of an individual to ensure that decisions made did not continue to disadvantage a particular group.
There were also two theories of discrimination to assist in the enforcement of equality – disparate treatment and disparate impact. The former is the most easily understood type of discrimination. The persons in power simply treat some people more favourably than others because of their race, colour, sex, religion or national origin. This is the charge by the now minor opposition party in the Government’s award of contracts. Proof of discriminatory motive is critical, however, although it can in some situations be inferred from the mere fact of differences in treatment. The second yardstick, disparate impact, involves engagement practices that are facially neutral in their application to different groups but which, in fact, fall more harshly on one group than another and cannot be justified by the exigencies of the initiative. For instance, in the above-mentioned construction contract awards, some groups may already possess the necessary equipment.