By Ravi Dev
The evident demise of the AFC reminds me of some comments I made back in 2006 about their refusal to break out of the rut established by the PPP and the PNC, purporting to create so-called “multiracial parties” that spoke for all groups in Guyana.
Ultimately, all politics is “identity politics,” as we seek to ensure justice and equality according to some criteria of our identity — be it race/ethnicity, gender, religion etc. But, in Guyana, no one wants to openly represent “ethnic/racial” interests, even though that’s what the people vote for.
Over the years, I have repeatedly asked the question, “Who speaks for whom?” There is the classic Liberal position of “representation by ideas”, where any individual could be chosen to represent a group once he “re-presents” the ideas that further their interests. The classic Liberal position, however, assumed that one was dealing with a homogenous people distinguished only by non-ascriptive interests – such as ethnicity/race. One of Liberalism’s founders, JS Mill, in fact declared representative democracy was not possible in an ethnically divided society.
The other position, which has been pushed particularly by feminists since the seventies, is the “representation by presence”. In this view, the members of some social groups, especially those who, in the past, have been excluded from the corridors of power, should personally represent their interests in the marketplace of ideas. Having personally experienced the situation that is sought to be rectified or changed, representation by presence adds an immediacy and life to the articulated ideas and interests, which may be missing when the representation is one level removed.
In Guyana, one-third of the candidates for Parliamentary office must now be women. But we baulk, however, when it comes to self-identified ethnic groups.
There is also a semantic confusion in Guyana between “multi-racial/ethnic” parties and “non-racial/ethnic” parties, and it has twisted us into all sorts of political contortions. A multi-racial/ethnic party can only be one that firstly accepts the validity of racial/ethnic interests; and secondly, has within it individuals who are willing to overtly represent those interests through ideas – and as may be warranted by presence. Such parties can be a coalition of self-identified racial/ethnic parties, as with UNMO in Malaysia (Malays, Chinese and Indians); or through self-identified caucuses, as in the American Democratic Party (Congressional Black and Hispanic Caucuses). By this definition, none of the parties in Guyana has been truly “multi-ethnic”, since no individual MP can speak specifically for an “identity” group.
A “non-racial/ethnic” party, on the other hand, believes only in the “representation of ideas”, and rejects the articulation of specific “ethnic” interests – as has, historically, all our major parties, including the PPP, PNC, and the AFC in 2005. So we were returned to square one: an electorate that votes ethnically but with representatives that refuse to overtly accept ethnic interests, and are thus forced to represent them covertly (if at all) to the resentment of other groups, who see the “multi-racial/ethnic” label as more salt in the wound.
ROAR felt that this was not the way to break the logjam in Guyanese politics. The goal was not “multi-ethnic parties”, but “multi-ethnic governments” with parties specifically representing all the various ethnic groups. ROAR declared itself an “Indian ethnic party” and declared its willingness to work with any party openly identifying itself as representing ethnic interests. In the “unity talks” between the smaller parties preceding the 2006 elections, it was because of the ethnic identification of ROAR that the AFC took the position that Ravi Dev could not be a candidate on a unified list. He was deemed “too divisive”. ROAR went into coalition with GAP, the Amerindian party.
I wrote then: “I believe that the entrance of the AFC is a positive development in Guyanese politics, but I believe, too, that unless it deals with the contradictions of representation, including those listed in this article, its effectiveness for being an instrument for change will be dulled in the coming years.”
Sadly, the AFC has all but imploded, and the APNU/AFC coalition is seen representing only “African” interests. Yet, they and all other parties in Guyana still insist they are “multi-racial/ethnic”, speaking for all, even as the country becomes even more divided on ethnic lines.
The tragedy continues.
