Guyana, we all know, may be one of the smallest countries in the world in terms of its population, but at the same time it is also one of the most multi-religious. Our 753,091 citizens (as of 2012) practice Christianity, Hinduism, Islam, Bahaism, Rastafarianism and a host of other syncretic hybrids. Most of us become aware of this religious diversity on account of public holidays being granted by the State to specific commemorations of the several religions. We just observed the beginning of the Christian Lent, which will end in Easter in April, and between that Hindus will celebrate Holi. In June, Muslims will observe Eid-ul-Fitr.
The generally peaceful cohabitation of these religions is generally attributed to the principle of secularism that is an integral aspect of the British political philosophy of Liberalism that undergirded their rule during the colonial period. Coming out of a long and bloody history of internal and external religious conflict in Europe, the secular view of religion heralded an enlightened approach to the sometimes incommensurable premises of the different religions and even their sects and denominations.
Because our ethnic divisions have been such strong forces in dictating the contours of our political competition for control of the State, there is always the danger of one or more ethnic group achieving the latter goal, using their position to prioritise a religion the majority of their supporters may practice. We must guard against this tendency. In fact, even though the fundamental tenets of secularism is that the State must be separated from religion and must adopt an equidistant position towards the several religions in the country, the British actually undermined this principle because, in practice, they gave much greater priority to the Christian denominations.
The several constitutions following independence all honed to liberal secularism and Art 145(1) forms the bedrock: “Except with his own consent, no person shall be hindered in the enjoyment of his freedom of conscience, and for the purposes of this article the said freedom includes freedom of thought and of religion, freedom to change his religion or belief, and freedom, either alone or in community with others, and both in public and in private, to manifest and propagate his religion or belief in worship, teaching, practice and observance.”
However, because of the historical dominance of Christian practices in several State institutions especially schools, there are still vestiges of those practices being favoured into the present. For instance, Christian prayers are still routinely mandated in several schools for all students regardless of their religious orientation. This is contrary to Art145 (3):
“Except with his own consent (or, if he is a person who has not attained the age of 18 years, the consent of his guardian), no person attending any place of education shall be required to receive religious instructions or take part in or attend any religious ceremony or observance if that instruction, ceremony or observance relates to a religion which is not his own.” However, last year when one Pastor was allowed by the Headmistress of a school to deliver talks that condemned other religions, the Ministry of Education did instruct this was against the policy of the State. Especially when Art 38F, introduced as a modification in 2003 specifically declares, “No person’s religion or religious belief of religion shall be vilified.”
The fact of the matter is that in practice, a liberal State cannot make choices that would amount to preferring one vision of the public good over another – and religion is one of the most vital public good. We have seen this preference exemplified in the activities promoted in Mashramani, which is supposed to be a “national festival”, emblematic of all cultures.
In like manner, there have been disturbing signs of a vocabulary redolent from one particular religion being deployed by several prominent members of the present Government, to buttress their claims to moral superiority. We have seen the problems that abandonment of secularism can precipitate in many countries. Let us guard our secular credentials jealously.
