Who'll Appologize to the Amerindians


	Publications
SAXAKALI	Communities of Color
e a c h o n e t e a c h o n e

Who'll Apologize to the Amerindians?
Or what's missing from the Hines-Kanhai-Ellis debate
by Moses Seenarine

Perhaps the most glaring limitation is this debate is an acceptance by all three authors of a biological concept of race. The assumption is that african and indian are biological categories, determined by birth. This ignores the role of society and issues of power in defining racial categories. How can we have a fruitful discussion of race when fundamental issues of what constitutes "a race" are left unexamined?

Take the case "duglas" or mixed-race people in guyana. Are they african, indian, or both? In guyana, they may be "duglas," but in the usa they are african. How about indians in guyana who are not considered as "real indians" by other south asians in the usa? Is race then, only biological, or is it also socially determined? If so, then we cannot only blame individuals for racial actions, but we must also blame the society which fostered their racial identities in the first place.

Another limitation is that of treating all people of one "race" as the same, for example, that all africans are PNC supporters or all indians are PPP supporters. The entire african guyanese "race" cannot be blamed for the actions of the PNC. How about indians in the PNC and others who supported them? How about the indian business people who profited under the PNC like Mazaralli, Tulsi Persaud, Kaman Sankar, etc.? And the religious leaders from the Maha Saba, Muslim groups, etc., who also gave their full support to the regime for close to 30 years? How about PPP's critical support for the regime? Are they also not to blame for election rigging?

The authors ignore that all indians and africans who refuse to support a dominant party based solely on racial identity are branded as race traitors and enemies of the party. If that party happens to be in power, you become an enemy of the state, despite your racial identity. One must also not forget that there were very real consequences if one became too visibly opposed to election rigging - from the loss of jobs, lack of promotions, etc., to jail, torture and death.

The authors also fail to separate the actions of ethnic leaders from the actions of an ethnic group. Though related, these very different actors are not equal in power or decision-making ability. This is not to say that no one is to blame. However, we must be careful not to use the term "collective guilt" to broadly blame large segments of the population for actions beyond their control. This frees us to look at those clearly responsible for undemocratic rule, from all "races."

Another limitation is ignoring all other ethnic groups in the country - amerindians, chinese, duglas, portuguese, etc. These ethnic groups were, and are, deeply involved in the development and politics of the country through the UF, WPA and other political parties. The UF played a fundamental role in supporting the early PNC, and the WPA played a major role in fighting the later PNC and PPP. Yet, the actions of guyanese women and men in these organizations are ignored in the two-sided debate between the dominant "races." Who will apologize to the amerindians, not only for 30 years of election rigging, but 500 years of colonial rule, state rule, and now corporate rule, of THEIR LANDS?

Yet another concern is issues of gender. It seems to me that this is a debate by four (now five) men, about two men (Burnham and Jagan), written for men. One woman is mentioned in passing, Janet Jagan, the current prime minister and leader of the PPP for over forty years. However, women are half of the population and were no less involved in the country's history. Take the case of Janet Jagan who served as the Marxist guru for both Jagan and Burnham. In the 1950 Georgetown Municipal elections, she was the only one of the three to win a seat. What role did she play in shaping both leaders conversion to Marxism, and what effects did this alien ideology have on local guyanese society and cultures?

Both marxist leaders have opposed all traditional indian and african cultures and institutions in their attempts to imposed an alien socialist ideology on the people. Popular, local leaders and organizations during the 1940's and 1950's like the League of Coloured People, BGEIA and Labour Party, were first eliminated. Then, for the next fifty years, local art and cultural institutions, religious leaders, village councils, etc., were all under attack as they represented a threat to our marxist leaders. Their lost have meant a loss for much of local guyanese culture.

Yet another limitation is a lack of historical perspective. Guyanese history began before Jagan and Burnham, and it is one of both cooperation and conflict between the various groups. To ignore this history is to deny people's experiences and their sense of collective struggle and achievements. In all this talk of election-rigging by africans, we seem to forget that this racial group was enslaved for hundreds of years in the colony, and were regulated to the status of "minority" group at the time of independence. As a "minority," what other options did this group have under a PNC or PPP regime? Hinds himself admits that african guyanese "actions were defensive, that their foremost concern was ensuring some power for Africans."

This point raises a larger issue: were the rigging of elections a political or economic crime, or did it reflect a process of political and social empowerment among a previously disenfranchised ethnic "minority?" Under a PPP-CIVIC government, the problem of a minority african electorate still exists, as Ellis points out (6/9/97) when he quotes a 1995 IDB report: "In a formal sense the system appear to be democratic since it delivers power to the elected majority, but in a deeper sense, it will not be perceived to be so, if it permanently deprives a significant proportion of the electorate of involvement in the making of important decisions."

On the other hand, writing on the PNC, Kanhai states: "As an indian, I have always felt that it was an injustice to have been denied my right to vote and elect a leader of my choice." First of all, it is an injustice for any group to be denied the right to vote and elect a leader of her/his choice. But there are two issues here: (i) the right to vote, and (ii) electing a leader of your choice. The problem with democracy as we know it is that majority rule will always result in (i) but not necessarily (ii). Kanhai does not address this crucially important issue that goes to the heart of the debate, that is, how are we to assure minority groups not only the right to vote, but the right to elect a leader of their own choice?

He also ignores the fact that under both the PNC and PPP governments, the indian upper and middle classes have made great fortunes, gained access to UN careers, etc., through support from the government. How are we to explain that their race and political rights had little to do with their success? This brings us to the limitations of political rights, which is portrayed as an "all you need cure for poverty, racism, sexism, etc." Political rights are meaningless without land rights, social rights and economic rights.

But even in the limited sense of one person one vote, the health of a "democracy" should not be measured by the percentage of votes one party receives, but by the percentage of total voter turnout in the elections. Election rigging and refusing to vote are both forms of resistance for groups who are permanently prevented from electing leaders of their own choice by a constructed "majority." This process of participation and resistance in a democracy can be seen in the large voter turn out in the 1953 election when both Jagan and Burnham participated as part of the same PPP, and the huge drop of voters in the 1957 elections when they opposed each other as two separate PPP parties (Burrowes 1984).

The authors in the debate also fail to distinguish the crucial difference between the political ambitions and actions of a relatively small middle and upper class, with those of an exploited working class. This small group, as it turns out, are far more committed to maintaining their privilege, rather than to any particular race, religion or ideology, so any discussion as to their views on race is pointless. As Eusi said in New York this January, they are racial opportunists, not racists.

If the PNC and PPP leadership are racial opportunists, then what point is it blaming the people for their actions? The leaders are the one to blame and should be held accountable for forty years of racial violence, hatred and separation. But who will bell the cats? Or better yet, how to bell these fat cats, feeding on the backs of working guyanese?

There are several ways to do this. One way is to take away the fear that is the bread and butter of racial opportunists. As long as the constitution and power is held by one party with the majority votes, there will always be fear and insecurity among minority groups. A system based on separate electorates and reservations for each minority group will ensure fair representation and remove the fear of each group that the other will dominate. Then political power will be based more on ideological coalitions, rather than on racial constructions alone.

A better solution will be to get rid of the concept of "race" altogether and solve the problem of creating "racial opportunists" in the first place. If there was no "race" or "racial" opportunity to capitalize on, there would not be any racial opportunists. This will then place the issue of race among the people themselves, without the interference of so called "leaders."

Another way would be to get rid of the concept of "leaders." How do you get rid of leaders, you ask? Not without a struggle for the minds of the people who create the need for "leaders" in the first place. You can also do so constitutionally by distributing power to the local level. Either way will involve a radical re-education of the people concerning issues of "race" and leadership." The alternative is to remain trapped in racial categories and racist politics.