EVERY five years Guyana conducts nationwide elections to decide who should hold the reins of government for the following five years.
Now the PNCR prodded by black activists, are demanding power-sharing as their next solution. ACDA/WPA activist Tacuma Ogunseye predicts, there “will be no more Guyana” if the PPP/C wins. Why have an election spending millions of taxpayers’ money, canvassing for many days and weeks, trying to convince voters of each party’s goals and policies? The PNCR and some black activists have already decided that they will not accept the results. They want power sharing regardless. Does it make sense?
Just by laying back and demanding to share power without working or spending a cent they can seek realisation of their goals one way or the other. Should the PPP win it seems that they will have to face yet another obstacle being promoted as democratic, even after the election results.
Failing to realise that most fair-minded “blacks are democrats” Dr David Hinds justifies his demands in a letter on 5-4-2011 to SN titled “African Guyanese don’t want favours and handouts, we want power to help determine ‘who gets what, when and how”. When will Guyana’s racial problems end?
Dr Hinds passionately dismisses those “people (who) sit around and clap-trap about whether power-sharing would work or wouldn’t work. They can continue to do so. This is not about majoritarian democracy; this is about the honour, dignity, human right and birthright of the African Guyanese people” alone, he sincerely wants Guyana to accept. The WPA activist rejects any reliance on free and fair elections and views it as being “equated to some simplistic notion of democracy, especially by those who because of the numerical strength of their ethnic group don’t have to worry about being excluded.” Dr Hinds completely ignores all blacks, Amerindians and other races who have been selecting the PPP/C of their own free will. Are they all wrong?
Arguing on the basis of race, Dr Hinds preferred solution is that where “we say power sharing is a higher form of democracy because it prevents one group from dominating the other.” In other words, Dr Hinds believes one’s race has predetermined one’s choice and there cannot be any freedom to exercise one’s choice themselves. This for him, is higher democracy.
Boldly supporting Tacuma Ogunseye’s to go marching after the election results, Dr Hinds adamantly affirms: “Yes, the streets. We are democrats. But we do not want a democracy whereby others speak for us and decide for us….we Africans don’t want favours and handouts. We want power—the ability to help determine “who gets what, when and how.” It would seem that Dr Hinds has appointed himself as the spokesman for all black Guyanese and wants to make their choices for them. This for him is higher democracy.
Now that the predominantly black PNCR has also adjusted to demanding Power-sharing for the 2011 elections, it plans to deploy former soldiers as polling agents in Berbice. It is still a mystery how these developments will exonerate the PNCR’s previous record of military sabotaging of Guyana’s elections especially with a former army commander as its presidential candidate. Isn’t this a grim reminder of prior army involvement?
It is becoming obvious that democratic elections are meaningless for the PNCR and its new WPA friends. The question now arises of why conduct elections every five years? The PPP and PNCR representing the majority of Guyanese might as well meet, sit and “determine who gets what, when and how” according to Dr Hinds’ power-sharing, higher democracy formula.
This accommodation will surely eliminate riots, racial violence and the wasting of taxpayers’ money on costly elections. Scrapping democratic elections will not only share power and but even prevent a lot of bother and ritualistic friction if Dr Hinds has his way. Indians should also be happier as it should also terminate the seasonal historical attacks against them during election time.
Has anything really changed with the PNCR? After splitting of the PPP, race riots and CIA intervention, the introduction of Proportional Representation, a PNC-UF coalition, the documented rigging of Guyana’s national elections, the mass Portuguese and Indian exodus and the wrecking of the country’s economy, Guyanese are even now being presented with another plan for continued friction. Any democratically elected PPP/C government may be prevented from governing by race hatred all over again.
How will they respond? Will the PPP/C now regret their inability to racially balance the country’s armed forces, while complaining about it when in opposition?
Or will they offer another alternative proposal? It must be obvious that power-sharing is not sustainable and will inevitably degenerate into continued bickering and eventually collapse.
Federalism on the other hand facilitates ethnic pride and economic self sufficiency. At least all Guyanese will still be free to decide where they want to live. With power-sharing, it would only prolong our long ethnic rivalries degenerating into the usual contentious acrimony. We must find a formula which terminates our division and intolerance and stops racial hatred.