MR. Eusi Kwayana in his letter to Stabroek News that was published on March 3rd, 2011 never ceases to amaze. In the letter titled: “We can use the sharing of governmental authority to create a society in which people of any race, gender, age group or location do not feel left out” completely ignores Federalism.
Doesn’t Federalism guarantee a permanent, equitable solution to Guyana’s race problems in which he has had the most disturbing role?
Why did Mr. Kwayana ignore Federalism which permanently shares power?  The elderly politician  compliments  Mr. Tacuma Ogunseye (who dubbed the 2002 – 2006 Buxton criminals as freedom fighters) as championing African causes and, as expected, is supportive in his “own view…that while he stands out as a voice for the future of all (sic) Guyanese society, he recommends marches as a means of achieving it”.
Mr. Kwayana, however, rightfully cautions that “political marches of one race, and regardless of their cause, have terrified others. We do not seem to realize that what we have not done enough (are) grounding, talking, and conferences, on these important issues. I do not mean talks between two top men, as we suggested crudely in 1961.”
To his credit, Mr. Kwayana concedes that marches do terrify people and then he clarifies it, i.e., he is not living in Guyana unlike Mr. Ogunseye. Is one to conclude that Mr. Ogunseye has validation to proceed with these terrifying marches regardless?
Indeed, these marches almost always result in attacks on Indians…and the burning and looting of Indian property. This cannot be continuously acceptable in a democratic society. Mr. Kwayana bears responsibility for creating the womb that created such an atmosphere.
His suggestion that we need to talk “with” rather than “at” each other is most welcome.  Mr. Kwayana needs to initiate, organize and fund these excellent and necessary encounters in pursuance of national dialogue. I am sure many will attend.
Escaping the perception of again trying to achieve power by the back door, i.e., through race by numbers, is a monumental undertaking for Mr. Kwayana to justify. This is a task he has always had difficulty in defending.
As the political guru, he advocates that by the “majority” of Guyanese Indians voting for the PPP, then the “minority” black population will be denied political power as they traditionally also vote PNC.
Mr. Kwayana feels this is wrong and an injustice. He therefore feels blacks should be ‘given’ equality (rather they are entitled) as the majority equals the minority and both should share in political power equally.
Since he argues from the basis of race, he fails to acknowledge that the minority Chinese, Portuguese and Amerindian populations also possess a similar entitlement for equality.
Therefore, shouldn’t they also be given equality on the basis of their racial origin similar to blacks?  How does condemnation of accessibility to power based on a democratic majority makes it wrong and in a similar vein, the converse demand that the minority has equal validation to such power makes it right; even when there are many such minorities in Guyana.
All this in the Caribbean region where Chinese, Indians and Amerindians (CIA) will forever be a declining minority bereft of the concomitant necessity for survivability. When and where will this drama end?  
Mr. Kwayana, in his new admission that he has not changed his conviction but only his methodology, therefore, cannot escape the perception that he meanders more in stealth in this important revelation.
In other words, if the Greeks cannot capture Troy by open military conquest the alternative method is to leave a gift of a Trojan horse and sail away.
Once the wooden horse is within the walls of the enemy city the soldiers can jump out and resume their attacks and pillaging. Remember what the PNC did to the United Force (UF) by outwitting them after the Portuguese-led UF joined in coalition with the PNC in 1964?
It was followed by a massive exodus of our Portuguese population that emptied their native Guyana under the PNC.
It should not be difficult to see why Mr. Kwayana always raises people’s passions whenever he writes or speaks about race.
This ‘tippy toeing’ over Federalism which offers the best solution to Guyana’s race problems in  contrast to the power sharing proposal may validate an impression that there is an ingrained belief that others are  beholden and must perpetually share (pay) what it possesses with (to) the other as a prerequisite legality for their own survival because Mr. Kwayana expects it.
Nothing may be wrong with voluntarily sharing with ones’ neighbours. But since all men are created equal, they would equally be productive to equally support self, family and neighbours and occasionally, voluntarily, with the likes of the poor.
Some may acknowledge that Mr.  Kwayana and Mr. Ogunseye are sincere in advancing power sharing just like coalitions and big tents arrangements are also likely compromises. However, these are all undoubtedly temporary solutions.  All these politicians will inevitably engage in perpetual bickering as to who are owed and should get more as historically evidenced in Guyana since 1955.
We can appreciate that even though blacks have been freed since 1838, yet some, not all, still justifiably lament that their lot has not improved significantly ever since. Not even during the 28 years of predominantly (1964-1992) black PNC rule. Yet no black leader can deny that blacks and their communities have made significant progress with the PPP/C even though there is much more to accomplish.
Federalism definitely allows all the major groups to permanently run their own affairs with all the glory of their acumen and skills to progressively advance without the hindrances of coalition partnership, power sharing and big tents, etc.
What now motivates Mr. Kwayana’s denial of black peoples’ freedom to zoom ahead through federalism is beyond me. Maybe he will tell us. Here are excerpts from his letter with my commentary.
** (1) “The PPP and the PNC were discussing a power-sharing project proposal by the PNC in 1985, now documented by Halim Majeed. Ravi Dev proposed a federal structure of government.”
Mr. Kwayana neglects to mention that Mr. Dev also documented his federal structure of government just as Mr. Majeed published his proposal in a book. One was for sale, while that of Mr. Dev was free for anyone to access – no charge.
What precipitated the secret PPP/PNC power sharing talks of 1985 immediately preceding Mr. Burnham’s passing away? Are those 1985 conditions still currently in existence or are they dissimilar to what now prevails? 
During 1985, the Cold War was very much alive, the Soviet Union was still an outwardly significant force locked in combat with the powerful USA and the PNC was moving towards a PPP orchestrated socialist agenda.
Dr Jagan, as an open communist who has acknowledged Guyana’s race problems but was unable to resolve it, always felt that an emphasis on resolving class inequality would overcome the race problems.
No doubt Dr Jagan’s PPP felt that by sharing power with the PNC it would hasten that party’s ideological orientation to transform Guyana into a full socialist state. While Dr Jagan felt his party would accomplish political ‘moksha’ by this arrangement, the PNC under US pressures needed the PPP to buttress its waning fortunes especially the PPP supporters’ excellent production of food to allay growing starvation and discontent.
Both parties needed each other as their interests were moving into ideological harmony. Compared to the present situation there can hardly be said to be many similarities. Currently, the PPP has done an excellent job of managing the economy, distributing social resources to everyone including Indians, blacks and Amerindians and made Guyana a better place without antagonizing the US or its neighbours.
In fact, the PPP’s record has successfully and democratically attracted black, Chinese and Amerindian supporters and votes in areas which the PNC and UF once dominated. The more the engine of development churns, the more waste byproducts increase. Like any growing country the waste products are an increase in crime, corruption and other social ills.
One of the glaring spikes, however, is the hubbub emanating from scattered Afro Guyanese activists from the former WPA that they, as legitimate black leaders are left out of the decision-making process of government regardless of their poor showing in the polls. Mr. Kwayana is a relic of this ancient echo.
Unmasking themselves now of any pretensions of multi ethnic harmony when they had flocked and sheltered under Dr Walter Rodney’s charisma who, like Dr Jagan, championed a class-based solution to Guyana’s problems, they have left their former WPA Indian consorts cowering naked under the bed of Marxism idealism.
The Indian leaders who were the other side of its WPA political buttocks have been completely paralyzed and are now impotent because of their Marxist rigidity and isolation.
They have absolutely no appeal to any community by class, race, culture or any other alternative grounding, especially the Indian population in whose name they operate. But the former WPA black activists have re-emerged repackaged in collective black consciousness agitation and left their one time partners swirling in the dust.
Those former Indian WPA activists imploded as they were without absolutely any fundamental fallback for survival such as Caribbean Indian consciousness which they never cultivated. This accounts for their demise but not their burial. Currently, they seek life support by affiliation with the main opposition PNC but it is doubtful what they take to the table.
Now that those WPA Afro centric leaders, in a quest for power are seeking to regroup with likeminded others, they have been ratcheting up their attacks on the PPP bereft of any other motivation other than demands based on race. To gain traction within the black community they have resorted to stirring the usual appeal to race by attacks on Indians. 
Why does Mr. Kwayana now feel after continuous attacks on Indians, that power sharing or coalitions will alleviate Indian fears, ethnic survivability options and security in a plurality? Why is he silent on Federalism?
** (2) In his letter, Mr. Kwayana posits “my apology in 1978 was very clear and public. It was given before many witnesses during the course of a lecture on ‘Racial Insecurity and the Political System.’ In it I apologized for my handling of the race problem, not for my conviction.”
One must still commend Mr. Kwayana for apologizing, regardless.
However, what did Mr. Kwayana’s apology entail and for what was it made?  The crudeness in presentation (he describes it as crackpot) of partition as a solution? Were the witnesses responsible for Mr. Kwayana’s forgiveness? Did they admonish him like Jesus to “go forth and sin no more?”
Did he say at that time that he was definitely not apologizing for his convictions like he now currently insists by revelation?
Many Afrocentric Guyanese leaders like Mr. Kwayana have been justifiably lamenting the black (not poor people) economic plight; the perception is that Indians (majority poor included) exclusively owe or hinder others’ advancement; that Indians owe others such rights because they have done it themselves. Obviously Federalism will grant all of us the freedom of attaining those rights and successes. 
What it also does is terminate the constant, forever complaints, about discrimination or marginalization by race, et cetera, by both sides.  Indians are not likely to stop complaining should it be perceived they lost political power after power sharing or big tents inevitably fails.
Already their culture and religion (Hinduism) are under attack to ensure they are reduced to equality with blacks.
But regardless of all the acrimony, it is obvious that each group actually does possess the equipped skills to take care of their own destiny. Indians even assisted blacks to grow rice in Demerara during the PNC period 1964-1992. In most cases, Indians have always fed blacks including Mr. Kwayana (Buxton’s Pandit Sama Persaud constantly subsidized him and the King extended family financially) despite the political tensions. Mr. Kwayana was even a prominent speaker at his friend Pandit Sama’s funeral in the early 1990s.
Under Federalism Guyana will still be one country. Why will this cordiality not continue in the future when we live as a federated giant family? In such a federated country I will continue to have affinity with other Guyanese regardless of his colour. We all speak English and eat the same foods. Does anyone expect that blacks will stop eating curry and roti or Indians terminate cooking metemji or ‘chunkay’ boiled and fried ground provisions with salted fish?
More unites us in history than our neighbours across the foreign border. But for the last 60 years we have been unable to get past this race problem. Only Federalism offers that permanent solution. Guyanese need it more than ever now.