The Reflection of Racial Tension in Politics in Guyana

Over the past sixty years, Guyana's unique racial profile has, in turn, created a unique political issue in the country. Due to the alignment of racial groups with political parties, ethnic differences have caused many issues and obstacles in the government. Some questions to ask are: what are the racial demographics for Guyana, what is the political history of Guyana, how do Guyana’s racial attitudes relate to political strife, and what can be done today to fix years of fraudulent government activity and racial discrimination? Through constitutional reform and evolving racial attitudes, Guyana can move past decades of corruption, mistrust, and violence and move into economic and social progression.

Guyana was a territory of Britain until its independence in 1966. It’s currently a democratic society in which the people vote in favor of a political party, not specific candidates. After the people pick a party, that party chooses the president, who then appoints a Prime Minister who acts as Vice President (Means, 2015). Guyana has a unique racial makeup: 43.5% Indo-Guyanese, 30.2% Afro-Guyanese, 16.7% of mixed ethnicity, 9.1% indigenous, and less than 1% is “other” (Central Intelligence Agency, 2016). The history of Guyana’s ethnic breakdown draws from slavery during colonialism. When Great Britain first colonized Guyana, it brought African slaves to work on sugar plantations. However, after the abolition of slavery in 1833, freed slaves asked for higher wages, so the plantation owners looked for a new source of cheap labor. They found their answer in East Indians, who came to Guyana as indentured servants. Most Indians ended up staying in Guyana and slowly became the nation’s biggest ethnic group (Ramkarran, 2004, p. 586).

Prior to its independence from Great Britain, Guyana had one multi-racial political party called the People’s Progressive Party, or the PPP. The PPP ran on a very progressive platform that advocated for independence. Naturally, this caused the British to grow nervous, and after the PPP won its first election in 1953, Britain suspended the constitution and threw out the PPP’s government (Ramkarran, 2004, p. 588). In 1955, some supporters left the PPP and formed the People’s National Congress, or the PNC, consequently provoking over sixty years of racially-driven political tension (p. 611). Ever since then, for the majority of the time, the Indo-Guyanese will vote with the PPP and the Afro-Guyanese will vote with the PNC. Because these two racial groups make up over 73% of the population, they dominate the political power in Guyana. Furthermore, because the Indo-Guyanese have a majority over the Afro-Guyanese, if everyone’s vote coincided with their race, the PPP would win every election. Because of the PPP’s socialist tendencies and the growing fear of socialism during the 1960s, The Kennedy Administration and a British intelligence agency jointly worked to destabilize and weaken the PPP’s power in Guyana. They accomplished their goal by creating an electoral system based on proportional representation instead of first-past-the-pole. After these changes were implemented, the PNC in coalition with the United Force (a smaller political party of the time) easily won power (Ramkarran, 2004 p. 588-589). This first instance of tampering with the free elections triggered not only several more decades of unfair and rigged elections, but also created the tendency to distrust the electoral system that to this day causes civil unrest and political strife in Guyana.

A PPP propaganda sign promoting independence in 1966.

Following the U.S. and British intervention in 1961, the government continued to spiral down into a corrupt abyss. Despite gaining independence from Great Britain in 1966, the Guyanese government, which was controlled by the PNC, continued to make sure that the PPP gained no power. Throughout the 1970s, several violations of human rights were caused by the authoritative PNC: the 1973 elections were rigged, authoritarian power increased greatly, freedom of press was destroyed, political activity was suppressed, and violence was common towards the PPP (Ramkarran, 2004, p. 589). Furthermore, since political parties were organized by race, this meant that the Afro-Guyanese were basically committing hate crimes against the Indo-Guyanese. During this time, the government also published the Constitution (Amendment) Bill which would repeal the law that required a referendum in order to amend certain parts of the Constitution. After a heavily rigged election in which the PNC claimed a 60% voter turnout and the Committee of Concerned Citizens claimed a 10-15% voter turnout, the bill was passed, and the PNC had complete control over the changing of the Constitution (Ramkarran, 2004, p. 590-591). In 1980, a new constitution was placed into effect by the PNC-controlled government. It gave the presidency huge amounts of executive authority and also made the cabinet an advisory board that had no real power to implement anything (Ramkarran, 2004, p. 592).

After this massive increase in executive power in Guyana, opposing political parties realized that their obstacles in the government were no longer just political; they were also constitutional. In the 1985 and 1992 elections, all opposing political parties made constitutional reform a major part of their platform (Ramkarran, 2004, p. 594-595). In 1992, elections were monitored by international observers to ensure that they were free and fair. Coincidentally, this was also the year that PPP also happened to win the election and take back power (Ramkarran, 2004, p. 595). In 1997, the PPP once again won power with the largest majority ever recorded. After all the results were reported there was much civil unrest initiated by the PNC which also lead to ethnic tensions and violence. (Ramkarran, 2004, p. 596). After years of political tampering with election, the opposing party was used to assuming that the electoral system was corrupted. Additionally, for decades, the PPP tried to create a coalition between itself and the PNC in order to get more equality in the political system. It also called for constitutional reform many times. It wasn’t until the PPP gained power in 1992 that the PNC also claimed that it wanted constitutional reform (Ramkarran, 2004, p. 611). This is believed to have been because constitutional reform called for the weakening of presidential powers, which would have been favorable to the PNC only after they lost the presidency.

Jimmy Carter has been one of many international observers at Guyana's elections since 1992.             

Following this period of civil unrest and international intervention demanding constitutional reform, a commission was created to reevaluate the constitution. The commission ended up making several recommendations on how to reform the constitution including reducing the powers of the presidency, ensuring the fairness of the electoral system, and making certain that racial relations improve. Here are some of the more notable suggestions: “ the cabinet shall be collectively responsible to Parliament for the control of the Government and shall, along with the president, resign if it is defeated in the National Assembly on a motion of no confidence” (Ramkarran, 2004, p. 600-601); “the power to dissolve Parliament should be removed [from the presidency]” (p. 601);  “[the Elections Commission's recommendations include] making the necessary reforms to ensure the acceptance of election results by all concerned; amending the Constitution to limit the role of political parties in the conduct of elections through the Elections Commission to policy-making and monitoring” (p. 604); “ there should be clauses in the Constitution prohibiting all individuals and institutions, and specifically political parties, from indulging in any actions … in which there are elements of racial or ethnic divisiveness” (p. 608).

Following this deliverance of recommendations, the National Assembly passed legislation to carry out some of the reforms. In spite of this, there are still many problems with the Constitution. For example, the president’s terms do not have to be consecutive terms, and the president still has the power to dissolve Parliament (GUY. CONST). Furthermore, of all of the commissions that were recommended to be set up, only the Ethnic Relations Commission has been established (Ramkarran, 2004, p. 610). Constitutional reform fully came to a stop once political disagreements caused the PNC to boycott the National Assembly during 2002. In his 2004 article, Hari Ramkarran mentions that “unfortunately, the process is once again being held hostage by political disputes,” making reference to the moderated talks between the PPP and PNC to convince the PNC to rejoin the National Assembly. He goes on to add that, “the introduction of free and fair elections did not bring an atmosphere of anticipated political stability. As a result, the debate for further constitutional reform to force or, at least, encourage a degree of shared governance as a potential method of reducing political instability has continued” (Ramkarran, 2004, p. 611).

            As Ramkarran mentioned above, the main solution that the people of Guyana are looking towards now is constitutional reform. Since the political parties are still divided by race, having more shared political power between the two parties would cause less racial tensions and disparities. While the PNC was in power, the Indo-Guyanese claimed that they were being socially and politically discriminated against. This added to their distrust of the PNC that has lasted until today. By reforming the constitution to include the shared political power, the two political parties can ensure that their supporters are taken care of while also checking to make sure that the other party doesn’t abuse their power. But, as stated before, whichever party is in power dismisses the need for constitutional reform because an unreformed constitution gives them more power. I’d like to look at an article in the Guyana Chronicle, a national newspaper, as an example. 

            Being a national newspaper means that whoever runs the government also decides what the newspaper prints and writes about. In an article entitled “Constitutional Reform”, the featured writer laments on how there is no need for constitutional reform because the last session of constitutional reform fixed almost everything. He or she claims that “the main issues which are still persistently raised in discussions are the powers of the President, the immunities of the President and inclusive governance. These matters were addressed during the constitutional reform process”. The writer goes on to argue that the other main argument of constitutional reform, shared governance, is a “political issue, not a constitutional one” (“Constitutional Reform”, 2010). However, this is not true. Even just last year, the former president, David Ramotar, abused his executive power by dissolving the National Assembly in order to avoid a vote that would have removed him from power (Gupta, 2015). This is just one example of why constitutional reform is still necessary in Guyana.

            However, I personally believe that this issue goes deeper than just political tensions; it involves racial tensions too. In a New York Times article, Girish Gupta recognizes that “politics in Guyana have long been delineated by race” (Gupta, 2015). This idea is quantified in a study done by Joseph Landis in 1973 which measure racial attitudes between the Indo-Guyanese and the Afro-Guyanese. Landis found that only 16% of Afro-Guyanese had a favorable impression of the Indo-Guyanese. Additionally, only 11% of the Indo-Guyanese had a favorable impression of the Afro-Guyanese. More specified questions also discovered that the Afro-Guyanese thought the Indo-Guyanese to be more ambitious, thrifty, sneaky, and deceptive than their own race. Landis goes on to explain that “these views all tend to make Africans fear that they will not be able to compete with Indians economically or, given the rapid growth of the Indian population [in 1973], politically” (Landis, 1973, p. 429). The unfavorable racial attitudes demonstrate the fact that racial tensions have been a fundamental part of the Guyanese political decision-making process from the start. The fact that the Afro-Guyanese feared that the Indo-Guyanese would outcompete them politically most likely contributed to the rigging of elections in the favor of the PNC. This only caused the racial tensions and animosity to intensify over the years until today, where is it very difficult to get the races to agree or trust each other in the political sphere.

Above is a political cartoon making fun of the incredibly racialized political system in Guyana.

However, Gupta also mentions how, in recent years, there has been a multiethnic political movement “who say that politics as usual has held the country back by favoring race over merit”. A new party that formed in 2004, Alliance for Change (AFC), draws supports from both the Indo-Guyanese and the Afro-Guyanese. It became a real political power when it split the vote in 2011 and made the party in power, the PPP, lose the majority in the National Assembly. Since then, the AFC, in alliance with PNC, has blocked a lot of legislation set into place by the PPP and even threatened to call for the president’s removal (Gupta, 2015). This party is a refreshing change from the tradition of racially polarized political parties and could be the key to real change in Guyana’s political system. By eliminating race as factor in choosing political parties, racial tensions and disputes would decrease drastically in Guyana. It would also provide for a healthier political system that isn’t jaded by racial stereotypes and attitudes. Furthermore, a major component of the AFC’s manifesto revolves around constitutional reform, which would, as Ramkarran says, “go a long way to reducing political instability and generating better conditions for economic and social development” (A Partnership for National Unity and Alliance for Change Coalition, 2015; Ramkarran, 2004, p. 611).

Above is a video about the racial divide in the most recent elections in Guyana.

In spite of a recent rise in popularity, it is unclear as to whether or not the AFC will end up just acting as “a spoiler in the sparring between the two main parties” (Gupta, 2015). A comparison can be made to the Working People’s Alliance which was founded in 1973 on values similar to that of an Alliance for Change: racial harmony and free elections. Although they did gain momentum for a few election cycles, they soon withered away without support. However, the AFC has already stayed one step ahead of the Working People’s Alliance by teaming up with the PNC to insure their relevancy and essentiality in future elections.  Regardless of the question of AFC’s political future though, it will force the two main political parties to become more inclusive because of the power in the multi-racial political party (Gupta, 2015).

Racism in Guyana stems from its colonial days when Indians first came to British Guiana. This racial tension has carried over in the political sphere causing several issues and disputes. As power shifts between parties, the party in power abuses their position while the opposing party riots and calls for reform.  However, this pattern needs to be stopped if Guyana wants to develop socially and economically in the modern world. By eliminating race as a factor in the political system, implementing multiracial political parties, and furthering the effort for constitutional reform, Guyana could be on the road to prosperity.

Bibliography

A Partnership for National Unity and Alliance for Change Coalition. 2015. [Electronic Version] Manifesto Elections 2015. http://afcguyana.com/afcnew/wp-content/uploads/2015/06/APNU-AFC-Manifesto-Elections-2015.pdf

Central Intelligence Agency. February 2016.”Guyana.” https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/gy.html

“Constitutional Reform.” 2010. [Electronic Version] The Guyana Chronicle 24 March. Retrieved on 19 April 2016 from (http://guyanachronicle.com/constitutional-reform/)

Gupta, Girish. 2015. “A Multiethnic Movement Emerges in Guyana to Counter Politics-as-Usual.” [Electronic Version] The New York Times. 17 January. Retrieved on 19 April 2016 from  (http://www.nytimes.com/2015/01/18/world/a-multiethnic-movement-emerges-in-guyana-to-counter-politics-as-usual.html)

GUY. CONST. Art.70, sec.3. [Electronic Version]. http://parliament.gov.gy/constitution.pdf

Landis, Joseph. 1973. “Racial Attitudes of Africans and Indians in Guyana.” [Electronic Version] Social and Economic Studies 22: 427-439. http://www.jstor.org.nuncio.cofc.edu/stable/pdf/27856594.pdf?_=1460571528651

Means, Richard. 2015. Our World: Guyana. [Electronic Version] Ipswich: Great Neck Publishing. Retrieved on 19 April 2016 from http://eds.b.ebscohost.com.nuncio.cofc.edu/eds/detail/detail?sid=27b2af54-544e-4397-8d84-f4dc9fb26b01%40sessionmgr106&vid=0&hid=126&bdata=JnNpdGU9ZWRzLWxpdmUmc2NvcGU9c2l0ZQ%3d%3d&preview=false#AN=17599251&db=f5h    

Ramkarran, Hari. 2004. “Seeking a Democratic Path: Constitutional reform in Guyana.” [Electronic Version] The Georgia Journal of International and Comparative Law 32: 585-611. http://digitalcommons.law.uga.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1205&context=gjicl