Ethnic division and social cohesion

Dear Editor, Two headlines in the Guyana Chronicle caught my attention late last week: ‘Unity achieved through diversity -President says the Republic started shaping a culturally diverse society (Feb 23); and ‘Ethnic division began with colonizers -Alexander says education vital to achieving social cohesion’ (Feb 24).

It was not so much the headlines per se that really mattered, rather it was the merits and demerits of the messages the two authors sought to convey that is of interest. First of all, Messrs Alexander and Granger are from the same political party. They share a common ideology and philosophy. Secondly, the political party to which they belong has proven itself incapable of achieving national unity or social cohesion. That party’s political praxis by its very nature, places it in direct contradiction to the achievement of those lofty objectives.

National unity and social cohesion were not achieved during the rule of Forbes Burnham nor Desmond Hoyte, both predecessors of Granger

and Alexander. In fact, at the end of their respective administrations these twin objectives became caricatures of their failed policies.

At the end of the day, Guyana remains a deeply a divided nation. On the one hand Mr Alexander calls on Guyanese to “admit the fact that [ethnic] division is exists...” and on the other hand Mr Granger declares, “We have achieved unity in diversity.”

Messrs Granger nor Alexander may not be aware of it, but their utterances are a good example of the unity and struggle of opposites.

Anyone who denies that our country is deeply divided racially and polarized electorally is living in a fools’ paradise. At the same time, it is not something we Guyanese should be proud about.

Irrespective of how hard they try, neither Mr Granger as President nor Mr Alexander as Chairman of the Burnham Foundation will make a dent in this centuries old condition affecting Guyana. It just wouldn’t happen their way! The PNC has a history of divisive politics and electoral violence and rigging, and these poisoned the roots of national unity and social cohesion.

Mr Alexander in a recent presentation titled ‘Restating and Extrapolating Burnham’s Approach to Social Cohesion’ made the amazing announcement that “social cohesion was birthed out of Burnham in his campaign for national unity.” He did not provide any references from an independent authority, nor facts or even a shred of empirical evidence to validate Mr Burnham’s claim to fame as a social cohesionist.

Mr Alexander went on to give voice to an even more mind-boggling refrain: “After Guyana became completely independent of British rule, the fight to end such deep-rooted divisions and insubordination began so that the country can operate truly as a ‘cooperative’ society under a single national identity ‒ Guyanese.” Knowing fully well the importance of contextualizing any narrative, Mr Alexander, for reasons known only to him, omits to regale his audience about the class nature and historical development of his founder leader’s party and how it came to power, as though it didn’t matter to the present-day youthful enquiring mind.

Mr Alexander would have been historically correct and intellectually unprejudiced had he factored in independent, even if foreign perspectives in his restatement and extrapolation of his founder leader’s “birthing of social cohesion.”

While Mr Alexander was waxing warm delivering his presentation at St Stanislaus College, President David Granger, was busying himself at another function. This time it was at a place named the ‘Chetwynd Learning Centre.’ The centre, Mr Granger emphasized, was established to “preserve his founder leader’s legacy.” He went on to stress that, “...we need a research centre, not to publish falsehoods but so that researchers can find out what the truth actually was.”

The question is; what did President Granger mean when he referred to “what the truth actually was?” What ‘truth’ was he specifically referring to?” Whose version of this ‘truth’ ‒ knowing how relative and controversial it could be ‒ was he talking about?

To a considerable number of Guyanese the truth about Mr Burnham’s legacy would certainly not be found in the very selective choice of literature on display at the Chetwynd Learning Centre.

Inclusion of a copy of Cheddi Jagan’s The West on Trial difference.

Mr Alexander in his presentation earlier mentioned asserted:

“Ethnic studies should not be treated just as another academic study. It should be regarded as a learning experience...” (shades of the ‘learning’ factor at the Chetwynd Learning Centre). Calling for the establishment of a Centre for Ethnic Studies to conduct research, Mr Alexander said the research should be, “focused on identifying the objective existence of ethnic groups” and should “highlight that there are no inherent antagonisms to each other in our ethnic beings.” Mr Alexander further claimed that “different ethnic groups have different collective psyches which are determined historically rather than misjudging attributes and attitudes as some inherent abnormality of a particular ethnic (collective) personality.”

As far as I am aware, anthropology is not Mr Alexander’s forte nor is it mine, yet for his part, he meddles in a highly complex science. In my view, there are some philosophical underpinnings that must be taken into consideration in addressing this problem. Studies in ethnicity should not be based on metaphysical or speculative philosophy. The challenge will be to arrive at correct historic and scientific conclusions and not false ones based on the politics of race and ethnicity.

What if it was not ethnicity that posed the problem but some other social phenomenon that existed in its place?

Will experience or the general truth be the two fields to which researchers will be confined in their search for an understanding of the problem ? Or will the formal deductive method of thinking be applied in conducting research on this highly complex matter? Finally, will reasoning play any role in determining the contradictions inherent in the so-called may perhaps make a ethnic problematic?

According to Colin A. Palmer in his book Cheddi Jagan and the politics of power, “What we call the racial/ethnic history of Guyana is but the history of successive intruders who founded their empires on the passive basis of that unsuspecting and unchanging society.”

There is a dialectical inter-connection and interaction between social cohesion and national unity the basis of which must be an inclusive democracy or better yet, a national democracy. Without a thriving and vibrant democracy social cohesion and national unity will continue to be an illusion to be pursued. The born again advocates of national unity and social cohesion are not time tested supporters of an inclusionary democracy. Evidence, both past and present, attests to this fact.

Finally, the jab Mr Alexander made against Mrs Jagan was historically misplaced. I will not repeat here what he said about Mrs Jagan; suffice it to say that Mr Alexander, stands exposed by his own advocacy when he stated in his presentation: “Different ethnic groups have different collective psyches which are determined historically, rather than misjudging attributes...they must know and respect them.”

The majority of PPP supporters, like those of the PNC, are of a particular ethnic group. They both have particular collective psyches cultivated over centuries. As far as the members and supporters of the PPP are concerned their attributes are misjudged politically and rather than knowing and respecting them and their icons, the Alexanders of this world consciously choose to denigrate and disparage them. This narrow and prejudicial thinking will not take our country onwards nor upwards, on the contrary, it will regrettably sink the nation. Yours faithfully, Clement J Rohee