Dear Editor,
THE current debates in parliament around Budget 2023 are allowing us to witness, live and direct, the dynamics of racialisation and de-racialisation of Guyana’s politics.

The term “racialisation” as used here, refers to the unnecessary insertion of race and racism into political discourse.

“De-racialisation,” on the other hand, is part of a process of anti-racism whereby speakers refuse to allow political discourse to be infected with racial-political utterances.

Readers may already know that, for some time now, the APNU and AFC have been trying to paint Guyana in the language of an apartheid society.

These political parties have been supported by local and diaspora intellectuals who produce dystopian narratives that find ready expression in local outlets, as well as on various social media platforms.

The highly inflammatory charge, racial discrimination, found its way into Guyana’s 2023 budget debate when APNU Member of Parliament, Vinceroy H. Jordan, ventured into a near uncontrollable performance laced with innuendos of racial discrimination, and in at least one instance, use of the term apartheid.

It appears that Mr. Jordan is not aware of what constitutes apartheid, either in law and history, or in the practice of that dastardly form of power politics as practiced in Southern Africa.

For his sake, and those who support his project of racialisation in Guyana, the definition of apartheid by the African Union Human Rights Project should be instructive.

It reads as follows: “The Apartheid (1948 to 1994) in South Africa was the racial segregation under the all-white government of South Africa which dictated that non-white South Africans (a majority of the population), were required to live in separate areas from whites and use separate public facilities, and contact between the two groups would be limited. The different racial group were physically separated according to their location, public facilities, and social life.” (AUHRM Project Focus Area: The Apartheid)

South African History Online offers the following on apartheid: “Apartheid-made laws forced the different racial groups to live separately and develop separately, and grossly unequally too. It tried to stop all inter-marriage and social integration between racial groups. During apartheid, to have a friendship with someone of a different race generally brought suspicion upon you, or worse.

“More than this, apartheid was a social system which severely disadvantaged the majority of the population, simply because they did not share the skin colour of the rulers. Many were kept just above destitution because they were non-white.” (https://www.sahistory.org.za/article/history-apartheid-south-africa)

Mr. Jordan, as well as Mr. Roysdale Forde who bellowed charges of discrimination, must know now that there is nothing remotely resembling apartheid in Guyana. A quick check of the Guyana parliament shows that there are approximately 25 Africans, 25 Indians, and 15 persons of Amerindian, Portuguese, and/or of ‘mixed-race background. Where is the separation? Who is dominating whom? All of the parties have mixed representation beyond tokenism.

Let us go back to the South African parliament for comparison. The Britannica historical archive describes the situation well.

Here is what they observe: “After its victory [1948] the National Party rapidly consolidated its control over the state and in subsequent years, won a series of elections with increased majorities. Parliament removed coloured voters from the common voters’ rolls in 1956.

“By 1969, the electorate was exclusively white: Indians never had any parliamentary representation, and the seats for white representatives of Blacks and coloureds had been abolished.” (https://www.britannica.com/place/South-Africa/The-National-Party-and-apartheid)

Editor, Mr. Jordan’s allegations, though unfounded, were subjected to an informed and impassioned critique from Bishop Juan Edghill.

The Minister of Public Works also noted three key elements of apartheid, namely, political parties are of one “race,” there is a subjugated population based upon race, and there are laws that regulate the spatial dynamics of the society. Specifically, apartheid laws prohibit persons of different “races” from being in the same place.

Edghill went on to charge that the real issue is anyone who does not support the APNU+AFC is considered a racist. He went on to say that if you are Afro-Guyanese and you do not support the PNC, you are not considered “Black.”

What makes you “Black” in other words, is to join a party or support a party that has the longest streak of authoritarian tendencies in the history of the Caribbean.

In a moment of veritable pride, Juan Anthony Edghill turned to the PPP/C’s side of the House and challenged the Opposition to say that it was of “one race.”

Juan Edghill disallowed Mr. Vinceroy Jordan’s play of racialisation to ground itself in the National Assembly.

Minister Kwame McCoy also played a significant role in pushing back against the epistemology of racism offered by the young and cantankerous MP, Mr. Jordon.

Editor, the efforts at refuting charges of apartheid in Guyana is not only for our national good, but also in defence of the noble and courageous people of Southern Africa who know what apartheid was, and who mounted one of the great fights for human rights in all of modern history.

Anything less would amount to disrespect for the victims of apartheid, something that Guyana, including the PNC fought against. Let us have some decency, at least where references to apartheid are concerned.

Yours sincerely,
Dr. Randolph Persaud