The March 2 and August 10 elections of Guyana and Trinidad and Tobago, respectively, have illustrated that tribalism is still very much alive in the politics of the two plural societies and that constitutional reform is necessary to usher in better governance.

Trinidad and Tobago and Guyana are both plural societies, with their largest or dominant ethnic groups (almost equal in size) being the descendants of East Indians and Africans. I submit that these two plural societies are fractured and that two dominant ethnic groups still perceive that they are in competition with each other for the country’s resources.

I do not believe the competition for resources is an entirely ethnic (or racial) one for persons of the two dominant ethnic groups, nor the remaining groups since there is evidence to show that the class structure is a major contributing factor. However, I cannot dismiss the generally accepted perception.

It is for this reason that I am not surprised when major political capital is gained when political parties can appeal to the economic insecurities of their respective (ethnic) bases.

Economist Tarron Khemraj (a learned academic, unlike me and my impressionable self) expands on this in his piece on “Politics and Underdevelopment: The Case of Guyana” published in the 2019 book, Unmasking the State. He wrote, “Pro-ethnic voting by the two dominant groups- East Indian and African masses- is endogenous or is jointly determined by external factors rooted in history, geography, production structure, and foreign price shocks.”

He posited too that tribalism is perpetuated because when considering to vote for a ‘third force’, the two dominant ethnic groups cannot be sure that the other group may also vote for a third party instead of the party that group has traditionally voted for. Essentially, Afro or Indo-Guyanese could vote for a third party in an attempt to break the tribal hegemony, but what if members of one of the two groups vote for the third-party while members of the other do not? The party which maintains more of its traditional supporters, therefore, wins.

“The respective masses (the overall majority) also perceive- rightly or wrongly- that their economic interests would be harmed if the other side were to win the elections,” Khemraj wrote.

As the votes were being tabulated last Monday in T&T, I listened to political analysts on Trinidad’s TV6 discuss some of the issues brought to the fore by the election; it came as no surprise that tribalism and constitutional reform were among those.

Former Minister Vasant Bharath highlighted that the two main Trinbagonian parties- the People’s National Movement (PNM) and the United National Congress (UNC)- head into elections confident of at least 15/16 seats each (out of the 41 constituencies in total). This is due to tribalism which characterises T&T- where a majority of the population votes for a party based on the ethnicity associated with the party. The election, therefore, is contested upon which of those two parties can secure the marginal (or swing) constituencies.

This is also the case of Guyana, in my opinion. It is well-known that the PPP/C will secure a majority of Region Six, for example (unless they monumentally botch their time in office). The very same goes for the A Partnership for National Unity (APNU) in Region Ten. The tribalism, I tell you.

Now, this is why constitutional reform becomes necessary. Guyana uses the Proportional Representation electoral system to elect a President and government and T&T uses the First-Past-the-Post system to elect its Prime Minister and a government, but what is common is that they are both, essentially, ‘winner-takes-all’ systems.

Up to Tuesday, as I am writing this column, the People’s National Movement (PNM) has 22 of the 41 seats, while the United National Congress (UNC) has 19 (Disclaimer: I don’t know if the recount may change this later in the week). In this political system, even the slimmest of margins results in an outright winner and loser. Imagine, Prime Minister Keith Rowley’s government stays in office for another five years by securing only two more constituencies than the opposition UNC.

Currently, the PPP/C government has 33 seats, as opposed to the 31 held by the APNU+AFC opposition and one seat held by the joinder list. Here too, the opposition is only the opposition because of a difference of two seats (which came from a difference of just over 15000 votes). This system is flawed, as it leads to a monopolisation of power.

Power-sharing has been one idea which has been popularised once again in Guyana, due to the events following the No-Confidence motion and the March 2 elections. I emphasised on the “once again” as power-sharing is not a new idea. As highlighted by Perry Mars (1990), the PPP/C proposed a National Front Government in 1977, in an attempt to foster “working-class unity for socialist development”.

If we can’t seem to shake tribalism (though I genuinely believe the national healing I wrote about in my previous column could help with this), then maybe constitutional reform and power-sharing are other alternatives for us to consider. I think the people in the plural societies of Guyana and Trinidad and Tobago could benefit tremendously from this.

If you would like to connect with me to discuss this column or any of my previous works, feel free to email me at vish14ragobeer@gmail.com