WE should not allow the evil of racism and Guyana’s frustrating politics to drive us to border on demeaning or denying some uplifting aspects of our identities. Identity is complex; it is partly who we say we are and partly how others perceive us. It is also a historical phenomenon that is sometimes determined by migration — forced and voluntary —- and by people bonding together in the face of real and perceived threats to their honour.

There are different forms of identity -— Civic (Guyanese, Trinidadian, American, Pakistani, Nigerian); Cultural/Ethnic (African, Indian, Irish, Latino, Jewish, Hindu, Moslem, Yoruba); Racial (black, brown, white, yellow, red) — to name three. There are times when civic and ethnic identities are the same, as in Japan and Portugal. This is not the case in Guyana and the overwhelming majority of countries in the world.
We have, over the years, tried with little success to fuse those three identities into a single Guyanese identity. This has to do with the fact that the experiences of our various ethnic groups have generally been different — they came under different circumstances and their lived experiences have generally been different. Their relationship with each other has been largely, though not exclusively, grounded in competition, sometimes conflictual competition; so their collective construction of what Guyana is will vary. We have to come to terms with the uncomfortable reality that though we refer to ourselves as Guyanese, there is no common view of what that means —- not politically; not culturally; and crucially, not on what Guyana’s history has been.

As an aside, people usually raise the issue of where do ‘Mixed’ people fit in the ethnic or racial scheme. Well, neither ethnicity nor race is biological. Mixed people are part of the ethnicity in which they are socialized. In the racial schema or “Colour Code”, there is no mixed colour. The exception is Apartheid South Africa, which created a racial group for mixed people, called “Coloured.”

Before 1966, we were not Guyanese; we were forced to be British, but most of our foreparents rejected that imposed identity and used instead their ethnic identities. If Guyana goes off the map, as some countries do, one will have to affirm another identity. At the time of the fall of the Berlin Wall, Soviets became Russians, Armenians and Ukrainians again. Later Czechoslovakians became Czechs and Slovakians.

So when we say we are Guyanese, we are affirming part of our identity; we are saying we join with other people living in this geographical space with defined boundaries, which has a distinct constitution and sovereign government. But we have to make a distinction between affirming one of our multiple identities at any given time and the fact that we do have more than one identity.

Affirming one’s Civic identity, as most people do, is laudable. In fact, the use of the Civic identity in an ethno-culturally and politically plural society is a strong affirmation of cross-ethnic commitment to making the civic space an all-inclusive one. But that does not mean one’s other identities disappear. Being Guyanese does not erase our other identities; it is just that we choose to affirm Guyanese.

Difference is part of human nature. It is actually a positive thing. It is when we attribute meaning to difference and then use power to actualize and normalize those meanings that difference becomes negative.

Guyana is a work in progress. We have to get to the point where we can all, in our differences, find sameness in the Guyanese experience. Sameness, without acknowledgement of obvious differences, would always be suspect and ultimately transient. Ironically, in trying to silence difference, we have widened it, thus making it easier for politicians to exploit it for accumulation of power and the privilege that comes with unfettered power.

THE PARKING METER CONTROVERSY
The controversy over the installation of parking meters all across the city brings to the fore several issues, some of which I don’t care to get into. But the one that stands out for me goes to the very core of democratic decision-making, and that is consensus. The fact that the Mayor and Deputy Mayor are on opposite sides of the matter is not in itself a bad thing; disagreements are normal. I am very sure that the introduction of parking meters will, in the long run, be a positive development for the city; and I am equally sure that the Mayor means well.
But it would have been refreshing if there were widespread consultations and discussions with an eye on consensus before a final decision was arrived at. It is not sufficient to have a new Council; there has to be a new dispensation, a new way of doing things, a new culture of governance. That is the only way to inspire in the wider society confidence that the change they voted for is real. The very notion of coalitions presupposes deeper-than-normal consultation. Such consultation should even have taken place at the level of the citizens; after all, the decision would affect them.

Why the hurry to get the meters installed? Are the Mayor and her supporters on the Council not worried about appearing to be arrogant? At a time when the society is sensitive to corruption and nepotism, one would think that there would have been some caution on the part of the Mayor and her team. After the fallout from the manner in which removal of the vendors was handled, the City Council could ill-afford this new controversy.

One does not relish the intervention of the Central Government, but given the depth of the controversy, I think the Central Government has not done itself any harm in insisting on a review of the contract. In fact, I think that in the end such a course of action would save the Mayor and the Council from long-term embarrassment.

Transparency has to be paramount in the dealings of Government at all levels.

SALARY INCREASES
Salary increases based on performance is not in itself a bad thing; it could help to motivate workers to improve their output. But I am skeptical. One has to be careful that that approach does not lead to a hierarchy at the workplace that could, in the long run, defeat the purpose. Further, one has to be careful that it is not used to discriminate against workers who may be at odds with management or are too vocal at the work place. Attention should also be placed on the social circumstances of the individual workers, because workers come from different households, and they bring to the workplace their different experiences.

There are kinds of social factors that could influence workers’ performances. Workers from stable households may start with an advantage. The system of evaluation therefore has to be fair, just and transparent. Perhaps a compromise could be reached that would see the bulk of the salary increases being given across-the-board and the remainder being based on performance.

More of Dr. Hinds ‘writings and commentaries can be found on his YouTube Channel Hinds’ Sight: Dr. David Hinds’ Guyana-Caribbean Politics and on his website www.guyanacaribbeanpolitics.com. Send comments to dhinds6106@aol.com