THERE is not an election – and I am sure you have dealt with it before – anywhere in this world where ‘race’ is not a critical element. It is integral to any political discussion you can ever engage in. After all, you are calling on people, human beings, to vote for you so race is important. In whatever the jurisdiction you may find yourself, the people who live there must be courted and counted when you are electioneering.

In this regard, the numbers of people who will vote for you are of utmost importance.
We like to selectively quote the USA in our discussions and here we have a prime example, for centuries America was governed by the Caucasian Race.

However, in the last two elections we saw a sudden shift to a “coloured” man leading the nation. Why the change, and how did this come about? There are many theories we can follow, but the one I have come up with is: President Obama endeared himself to the majority race and gained their respect and confidence. Being a coloured man he knew that he could not rely on the Black population alone. So, from the very start he went on a campaign to win the hearts and minds of Whites. He did quite a successful job of it to the point that his fellow Blacks saw the headway he was making and they too threw in their support.
America is not the only example of a minority heading the government; examples can be sourced from Fiji where Indians are a minority, but successive governments there were ruled by a minority Indian leader, reasons being they endeared themselves to the majority population.

Alberto Fujimori, a Japanese, could have successfully governed Peru.
The common thread woven through all of these stories is that race does matter when discussions of this nature come up and depending on how good your race relations are, that will determine the outcome.
The reason for all of the above examples is the fact that the minority leaders did the right thing, that is, endeared themselves to the people. They could have identified with the masses, struggled with them, felt their needs and as such were willing and able to be their leaders. These leaders were also successful in gaining the respect and admiration of the people.
When you look at the life the Jagans lived and the way they lived it tells you why they were successful in the leadership role they played. They earned the respect of the people across the political and racial divides. The PNC vainly tried to tarnish that image with a “race hate” campaign, but those of us who know the facts when comparing the two parties quickly come to the conclusion that the PPP/C is the only political entity that qualifies itself for the leadership role.
The PNC/APNU never had our respect, neither can they.
This is the point where race takes centre stage, because you cannot readily ignore a majority race in your country; ignore that racial grouping and you are doomed. This was evident in the Guyana situation when Burnham downplayed the Indian vote and rigged every election thereafter. He bullied his way in Guyana. His poor political posture held an entire country prisoner. He made himself president for life. It is the real reason why he could not explain his position of not being liked by the race, yet he could have commanded an “overwhelming majority” at every election. For nearly three decades, we were governed by a minority government who governed against our collective will.

That is why he went for the rigging option. This went on for 28 years until the true leader stood up, which was facilitated by free and fair elections. We now steadfastly uphold our democratic rights to choose a leader and are not yet about to surrender that right.
In Guyana, Indians command such importance and I dare say respect, because they are the majority race. Whether you like it or not the outcome of any election here depends heavily on the way they vote. Not that the Afro-Guyanese vote does not matter; the point is the race that will tip the scale in either direction hinges on their vote, hence, this undue obsession and attention with the way they vote.
The PNC/APNU stuck to a non-inclusion of Indians in their party and paid a heavy price when free and fair elections were held. This they hope will change in the coalition of sorts with the AFC. But even at this stage the situation on the ground is slippery for them, because the hardcore PNC members are singing a different tune. That “unity” stance is not unity at all but an association of convenience for the bigger partner in the coalition. Listen to the comment of a PNC friend of mine, “what do you think we have them there for?” This in itself is a loaded statement that tells of the way the junior partner is viewed by certain elements within the grouping.
The PPP/C shares blame also, by straying away from the core principles of the party. They did take the race for granted and very nearly paid the ultimate price. They are in catch-up mode right now.

NEIL ADAMS