LET us not kid ourselves, if Guyana were a homogeneous society devoid of ethnic voting patterns, there would have been no contest between the His Excellency David Arthur Granger and the PPP presidential candidate, Mr Irfaan Ali. The gulf in class is inescapably conspicuous. So the question has to be begged, why are we even having this conversation? Based on the political and historical evidence, it is well established that we are plagued with tribal politics and this discussion exists due to our sad reality.

Enough ink has been splashed on this phenomenon and it has been litigated ad nauseum. However, this intervention seeks to draw attention to the fact that ethnic voting has never been tested like this before. The selection of Irfaan Ali, in a context where there are clearly better candidates who can mount a formidable challenge to the incumbent, has essentially thrown down the gauntlet to the unthinking flock. This conceited action has presented a shocking and dangerous message to the republic. Hypothetically, it has grandiloquently proclaimed: we can put up a mop stick as our candidate, you must do your ethnic duty and support it, even if it is at the expense of the country. What effect does a candidate have on the entrenched immovable ethnic bases?

The immovable ethnic bases theory
Researchers and scholars have examined the effects of candidates’ ethnicities on the choices of voters, Barreto, Fraga, McConnaughy and Prez have studied this. They have concluded that racial identity and shared experiences can help candidates appeal to their ethnic communities in a unique way that is not easily paralleled by a candidate of a different ethnic origin. In the Guyana context, there is a theory of the immovable ethnic bases in Guyanese politics. Some have argued that there is a failure of majoritarian democracy, inclusionary domination and the dialogue to significantly reverse ethnic conflict (Hinds 2011). According to Ravi Dev, racial polarisation in Guyana is a fact of life.
It has been observed, ‘The two main ethnic masses – except a relatively small percentage of independent voters – vote for their respective ethnic leaders. The party which wins the election will draw supporters from its ethnic group to form core government positions’ (Khemraj, 2016). Others have submitted that we are never going to end ethnic voting (Jeffrey 2016). Ralph Ramkarran has noted, ‘Guyana’s ethnic groups still vote for their ethnic parties regardless of their performance in office.’ A leading proponent of power-sharing, Mr. Sherwood Lowe, has consistently alluded to the immovable ethnic bases which he believes forms the nucleus for justification for his advocacy.

Others are of the view that politicians are to be blamed for exploiting identity politics (Kissoon 2017). Based on the voting patterns at national elections, it is extremely difficult to present argumentation against this thrust of theorizing, but it has to be noted. Political scientists consistently complain about the difficulty of disentangling whether a voter decides due to tribal consideration or ideology. Be that as it may, the question remains, how immovable are these ethnic bases? Can manifestos, the content of a presidential candidate’s character, grandiose speeches, programmes, policy proposals and committed campaigning change the mind of hardened, blind loyalists? Further, can the fact that the worst candidate selected and is being put forward for a clear puppet presidency arrangement have any effect? There is research that suggests this is a difficult task. In an article, ‘Racial or spatial voting? The effects of candidate ethnicity and ethnic group endorsements in local government elections’, published in the American Journal of Political Science, Cheryl Boudreau et al established, ‘…ideology strongly influences voters’ choices in a multiethnic local election’. Perhaps, the example of Barack Obama’s victory in the 2008 US elections is quite instructive. In my view, the candidate does matter, regardless of the electoral context. The immovable bases can be swayed, they are either demobilised due to an extremely poor choice available to them, or they can be made more excited by an exceptional candidate.

The republic faces a dangerous precedent
The pursuit of power at all cost by one man has saddled the republic with a scenario that portends to place this country on a dangerous path. If this engineered candidacy which is lacking the most basic global standards of attempts to occupy the highest office works, tribalism will be laid bare. A victory for this electoral audacity will ensure all chances and goodwill for the nation dissipates. There will be no way to explain how a man with absolute integrity, vision and all the right qualities of leadership and a four-year track record of unprecedented achievements, ends up on the losing electoral end. If so, all fingers will be rightly pointed at the tribal monster. Such a development, if it occurs, teems with nation- breaking implications. Surely, the ethnic base cannot be this immovable.