Guyana not ridden with racial & ethnic conflict

By Prem Misir, Ph.D.

This notion that Guyana’s history is not ridden with racial and
ethnic conflicts
Political Deception

Today, I want to address the question of whether Guyana, a multiethnic society, is ridden with race and ethnic conflict, focusing on the two major ethnic groups, East Indians and Africans. A multiethnic society is a rank order of ethnic groups, where each group comprises of people with common cultural or physical characteristics, located in positions of dominance and disadvantage. This is ethnic stratification. Any dominant ethnic group has total access to the valued resources of society, with disadvantaged ethnic groups picking up only minimum rewards. The dominant ethnic group, generally, sustains its control, power, and privileges through prejudice and discrimination. Prejudice is a negative attitude toward an entire group pf people. In fact, ethnic prejudices are generalized, inflexible, negative, and are based on erroneous group images known as stereotypes. Discrimination, on the other hand, is a behavior, that is, an action perpetrated to deny opportunities and equal rights to individuals and groups, due to prejudice or other impetuous reasons.

The presence of a dominant ethnic group, generally, concocts prejudice and discrimination, to sustain its power base. Guyana does not have a dominant ethnic group, as evidenced through both East Indians and Africans’ relatively equal access to education and jobs. Spectacular education outcomes and high-level jobs are in the hands of these ethnic groups. We do not see, for instance, only East Indians, or only Africans excelling at CXC and SSEE. Both major ethnic groups are well represented in the professions, especially in the legal, medical and teaching professions. And, indeed, unemployment and poverty do not plague only one ethnic group. In some multiethnic societies in the developing world, we can observe a rigid ethnic ranking of their people, with impressive education outcomes and jobs confined only to the dominant ethnic group.

Given that Guyana does not have singular dominant ethnic group, it, therefore, stands to reason that many aspects of this country’s racial and ethnic conflict are politically and socially constructed and reconstructed by ethnic leaders jockeying for political power. In Guyana, daily, we see the cynical manipulation by ethnic leaders or shall I say, so-called ethnic leaders, whose main agenda is to penetrate the backdoor entrance to political power. It, therefore, is in these ethnic leaders’ interests to keep ethnic and racial conflicts alive, if they want to remain relevant in Guyana’s politics.

We need to remind ourselves that Guyana’s history is not inundated with racial conflict, but ethnic alliances. However, some politicians want us to believe that racial and ethnic conflict is endemic in this society. Rodney makes the point that the case advanced of highly prevalent racial conflict in the society is inaccurate.

Let us now look at a few facts supporting this notion that Guyana’s history is not ridden with racial and ethnic conflict.

1).The Commonwealth Commission commenting on the disturbances in 1962 : “We found little evidence of any racial segregation in the social life of the country…East Indians and Africans seemed to mix and associate with one another on terms of the greatest cordiality…”
2).There is the alliance between East Indians and Africans under Critchlow’s leadership in the fight for better wages, and an 8-hour working day.
3).The union of ethnic forces against colonial hegemony is another case in point, e.g., the frequent criticisms launched by the Indian Opinion, the organ of the British Guiana East Indian Association, against the colonial government; Africans challenging the anti-education principles of the 1876 Education law; the demand for Indian languages to be introduced in schools; and the Court of Policy comprising members from many ethnic groups made crown lands available to both East Indians and Africans.
4).The emergence of institutional working-class unity in 1946 that became solidified in 1950 with the formation of the People’s Progressive Party and the unity manifested by its victory at the 1953 polls.
5). H.J.M. Hubbard, a trade unionist in addressing whether Guyana is ridden with racial conflict said:
“It is by any standards a remarkable fact that in a competitive semi-feudal society such as British Guiana with restricted social and economic opportunities and less jobs than potential workers, very few serious physical inter-racial conflicts arose between the ethnic groups constituting the population” (Hubbard 1969:27).

Political Deception
The ethnic conflict is socially constructed and reconstructed and acts as a subterfuge by some politicians to secure political advantage along ethnic lines. That is, the ethnic division is an invented racial antagonism, not rooted in sustained racial and ethnic hatred, but political deceit.

There are numerous examples of political deception camouflaged as ethnic conflict, evidenced by the daily adumbration through the unregulated broadcast media.

The history of Guyana does not support a high prevalence of nationwide ethnic conflict and violence, as seen in some multiethnic societies steeped in prejudice, discrimination, and segregation. Today, the principles of divisive ethnic rules, as used in colonialism, are again applied in some political quarters for capturing the prized legal-political stage. On Thursday, May 15, the Government of Guyana in collaboration with the United Nations effected a workshop on building social cohesion and reducing tensions in Guyana. This workshop marks another progressive step in the move toward enhancing political and democratic development in Guyana. We must sustain this approach.
TOP