After the Forum of African Guyanese by Cuffy 250, some Guyanese expressed alarm at the frank speech on expectations in an ethnically divided society. They insist that only “multiracial” politics can work for Guyana.
But what is a “multi-racial” party? Is it one in which the leaders are drawn from all or most of the various racial/ethnic blocs that constitute our polity? Is it one that has members drawn from all the various groups? Do the proportions have to roughly mirror the population or will any assorted agglomeration do like with APNU/AFC? Or does it mean that the interests of all the groups must be expressly articulated and represented? Should those interests be subsumed under some notion of a “national” interest? Who defines that “national” interest? And so on.
In Guyana, all of the parties before ROAR claimed that they were “multi-racial”. They took special pains to have individuals from all the major race groups in their executive and courted votes from across the spectrum. They constructed “national” manifestos. Yet when it came to elections, the majority of the people invariably voted for one of the two major parties, which were firmly identified with specific ethnic blocs – the PPP with Indians and the PNC with Africans. Some assert that the WPA was the only authentic multiracial party. This, of course, begs the question posed above as to what is an “authentic multi-racial” party.
The question harks back to the roots of what constitutes “representation” in our “representative democracy”. The favoured approach, from both the old Liberal and Marxist ideologies was the “representation of ideas”. That is, once the interests of the group are articulated, then anyone could “speak” for the group. By constructing “national” platforms in personnel and content, both the PPP and the PNC claimed to be capable of speaking for “all”. Yet, based on the results of election after election, it is obvious that there was some way the people were getting signals as to which party better represented their interests – which turned out to be racial/ethnic every time.
These ethnic signals were encapsulated in the ethnic identity of the top leader of the party and conveyed during the “bottom house” meetings and by the use of code words that the people understood. Our insertion into Guyanese politics occurred in the immediate pre-1992 years, by that time the Indians saw the PPP as capable of winning on its own in a “free and fair” election and the Africans had no faith that a possible vengeful PPP would protect their interests. Both sides returned to huddling under their own perceived tent. And here we have remained – with some cracks last year.
In 1992, as articulated in our 1990 paper, “For a New Political Culture”, we proposed “Shared Governance” and eventually, Federalism, to share power in the country equitably. Our theory predicted ethnic violence, which unfortunately came to pass, with its increased polarisation. So, how do we arrive at “multi-racial” politics that can involve all the groups to their satisfaction?
We thought it was self-evident that the parties that the various groups selected via their votes should come together and work on a programme that combined their several platforms. We still believe that this is the way to begin and then work towards a federal approach, which would need the trust engendered during a period of working together. But there remains the evident distaste by the major political parties to acknowledge that they are “ethnic” parties.
The greatest irony is that this acknowledgement, coupled with the acceptance to work together, would result in the formation of a “multi-racial” government, which, after all, is what the goal of all their politics is supposedly all about. The “multiracial” party was supposed to only be a way-station to the “multi-racial” government, wasn’t it?
But the distaste for acknowledging that one has an ethnic party goes deeper than mere opportunism in some. A multiracial/multi-ethnic party must explicitly articulate the interests of the several constituent groups it purports to represent. This is done, as in the Democratic Party in the US, by having specific “caucuses” for African and Hispanic voters. It is now conceded that in addition to the old “representation of ideas”, there is the need for “representation by presence” especially for those who have been excluded or have experienced unique situations.
