We Guyanese at sixty

As we approach the 60th anniversary of our independence, we reiterate that unquestionably, we, the citizens of Guyana, must see it as a “common venture” and have some commonality of outlook to survive, much less prosper in the modern world. At independence we inherited a state but not a nation, since the happenstance of our arrivals ensured that we had no common culture. The experience across the world has demonstrated that people do not identify with the state in a spontaneous, automatic manner – and that’s partially why Guyanese have clung to their ethnicities. The challenge would be to construct a “unity” of the peoples within the Guyanese state that does not seek to obliterate the diversities but is more receptive and accommodative of self-conceptions. One obstacle to such unity is the refusal to accept that diversity is not the opposite of “unity” (“homogeneity” is); rather, its opposite is “disunity”. The solution to the apparent dilemma is to accommodate diversity without fostering disunity.
Interestingly, Canada and Australia, two ex-British colonies, have taken the lead in redefining their “national” identity. In their understanding, multiculturalism is an official government policy that promotes cultural diversity, and the “national” is conceived as the space within which many (ethnically defined and even imagined) communities live and interact. Taking our cue from these states, it is proposed that we acknowledge the several roots of our culture and that rhizomatically nourish a multicultural nation. The Guyanese state has now adopted multiculturalism as a governmental policy response to a multicultural society, i.e., a society that is culturally pluralist. The policy response, “multiculturalism”, must be distinguished from the societal condition of being multicultural. Most countries are multicultural, but only a handful are multiculturalist. Multiculturalism must be seen as a set of principles, policies, and practices for accommodating diversity as a legitimate and integral component of society. This does not mean that the state has nothing to do with culture but that it does not privilege any one culture over others.
What is being suggested is that we move from the idea of a “national culture” as a site for identification to the shared practice of a political ideology as the basis for engendering such identification within the state. Rather than those who demand that all ethnic groups assimilate into Creole culture to become “one nation”, we propose that a feeling of “we the people” – of “Guyanese-ness” – can be engendered in the process of our conscious construction of a democratic state in which we all have an equitable stake.
We situate this construction of a national outlook within what can be seen as a project of democratisation – the creation of conditions where we are all treated as one, equally, by the state. Equality of opportunity, human rights, encouragement of diversity, due process, justice and fair play and rule of law may seem dry compared to the warmth of the blood ties of “nation”, but they can engender the unity of public purpose and the recognition of individual worth where all can be proud of their common citizenship. Citizenship of Guyana has to become something that has concrete meaning to all of us.
For Guyana, then, our ethnicities would be defined outside our “Guyanese-ness”, and to be African, Indian, or Amerindian-Guyanese would not be contradictory in any sense. The first part of our identity would be specific, while the latter is universalistic. The “national” will now be a space where ethnic communities can live and share. To be Guyanese would be to share public moral precepts – norms, values and attitudes – rather than necessarily shared cultural experience and practice. To the extent that they are shared, it is to be lauded, but it must never be at the imperative to jettison one culture. For instance, we Guyanese value our hospitable outlook and a good cook-up! A “good” Guyanese would be one who is loyal to this country and strives to practise the secular universalistic ideological values it extols.
Guyana is therefore at a critical moment where we are attempting to ensure that state power and benefits are equitably distributed amongst the several ethnic groups in our society, which is a precursor to the creation of the space necessary for such co-existence. Multiculturalism is not just about cultural practices: it is also a signifier of the power relations of the society to which we are all sensitive. When these are distributed equitably, the culturally embedded individual can experience the content of a national identity.