IF there are young people interested in how to carve a united, diverse future for Guyana, then, they need to study the emanation from a senior politician in this country – Vincent Alexander on last Wednesday programme of the Gildarie-Freddie Kissoon Show.

In fact, Mr. Alexander’s offering is so complex and filled with curiosities and uncertainties that it may be a talking point for all politicians in this country. I will summarise briefly what Mr. Alexander adumbrated hoping that I attribute the correct statements to him. This is my interpretation. My interpretation is that Mr. Alexander was arguing for African entitlement, a proposition that is bound to generate counter-narratives. Ravi Dev comes to mind.

Mr. Alexander started out by pointing out that African slaves in Guyana preserved the country’s existence through the slaves’ contribution to the sugar industry. He said life for the emancipated Africans was oppressive because the colonial state made their existence a miserable one through all types of suppressive mechanisms, even using laws to discriminate against the villagers.

He concluded that African Guyanese have always been a dispossessed community and the society should recognise the historical disadvantages through entitlement (my word). He went on to argue that African Guyanese need an institutional framework including laws and economics and related instruments, to make them equal to other communities so they can have equal access to the national patrimony. I believe when I was listening to Alexander, he was arguing for African entitlement.

The debate on African entitlement has raged on with Indian rights activists debunking it with their own counter-narrative of the superb contributions of the indentured Indians and their subsequent generation, thus no ethnic community is entitled and should claim the right of entitlement. Immediately after Alexander’s delivery, I asked him a question that always comes to the surface of my mind whenever I hear or read about African entitlement.

I asked if there is a need for an institutional framework to empower Africans, wasn’t such legal, economic and social framework invented by a predominantly African party led by a hegemonic leader from 1964 to 1985. I referred to the power of Forbes Burnham and his PNC party. Alexander’s answer is worth listening to because it brings into question the very nature of the rule of Burnham.

Alexander agreed that Burnham did generate an institutional framework to address the historical wrongs against African Guyanese but it was not holistic enough. Now here is a huge goldmine for Guyanese academics who study Guyanese politics. What did Alexander mean by Burnham falling short? Alexander did not state why, but the probing question is that, given the limitless power of Burnham then, shouldn’t have Burnham lay the groundwork for African Guyanese future?

Alexander says that African Guyanese are disadvantaged at the moment. But how did they come to lose their cutting edge when Burnham’s control of Guyana was completely and absolutely totalitarian? Alexander must answer that question if he is going to persist with his entitlement demand.
From 1970, Guyana was a political economy dominated by the ubiquitous reach of President Burnham. When I came back to this country in 1984, I lived at the junction of Louisa Row and Hadfield Street on the border with Wortmanville and Werk-en-Rust. Just two blocks away was a Portuguese supermarket named J.P Santos. I will never ever forget once we debate contemporary economic history of Guyana what I saw at J.P Santos.

The shelves were empty and all I saw was dried, sweetened Carambola neatly packaged that was manufactured by a state company named Guyana Pharmaceutical Corporation. The state controlled 80 per cent of the economy. Sugar and bauxite were in state hands.

The Sugar Levy extracted a substantial portion of the income of the sugar industry and put it into the treasury to be used by the government. All trade licences had to be approved by the External Trade Bureau. It was almost impossible for Portuguese and Indian commercial stores to get a trade licence.
Now here is my alternative to Alexander’s composition of the urgency of an institutional framework for African entitlement. That empowerment using the legal, social and economic framework that Alexander yearns for was achieved by the Forbes Burnham government 1968-1985. Burnham acceded to the requests of African Guyanese politicians and historians for the need to redress the historical wrongs the White colonial state did to Africans.
If entitlement which dominated Guyana’s sociology and politics from 1968-1985 has disappeared, then it cannot be argued that it should be resuscitated? Why? Because that is saying that the African community in Guyana is special and should be treated specially. That is unfair to other patriotic ethnic groups.