Skip to main content

Jan 25,2018

Source

Dear Editor,

On the eve of 2018, Ravi Dev attempted another roar. His features are referred to as “The Roar of Ravi Dev”.  This time he roared at Henry Jeffrey’s reiterated proposal of a “grand coalition”. This roar saw Dev denouncing “the studied refusal of African theorists to follow Lewis’ suggestion and include ‘Federalism’ in their proposal for ending the ethnic security dilemmas”.

Over the years, I have expressed agreement with Ravi Dev’s contention that majoritarian rule will not work for Guyana. In fact, Jeffrey also expresses that view. Indeed, our point of departure is Dev’s insistence that the solution must include Federalism.

His articulation of the theoretical benefits of Federalism are flawless but fails to address the reality of Guyana.

In the past,  he has offered specific suggestions about the geographical construct of Federalism, in Guyana. On this occasion, he omits that articulation but contends that “In a society where the majority ethnic groups each constitute majorities in different areas of the country, political devolution offers the largest number of incentives toward addressing ethnic insecurities”. Thus, by inference, he returns to his old idea of creating four states: Berbice, Demerara, South Essequibo and North Essequibo, or some such configuration based on ethnic dominance.

While I am an advocate of devolution, I maintain that his proposition of Federalism is highly flawed, Indo-centric and non-recognition of the contribution of other Guyanese to the development of Guyana; and their collective right to its patrimony. On another occasion, I will deal with the racist nature of his proposal.

Wherever Federalism has been adopted, its implementation has been associated with the inhabitants of a particular state sharing  some homogeneity and collective sovereign right. In Guyana, our occupation and development of any and every part of the country has been shared with ethnic sequential presence  and probable dominance, at particular junctures. No one part of “Guyana” can historically be attributed to any one ethnic group, except for the Amerindians, who are condemned to dominion in South Essequibo, in his construct. Having laid the foundation for the development of the entire coast of Guyana, Ravi Dev’s construct seems to provide African Guyanese dominion over Demerara, by far the smallest county with the least diversified resource base, the largest population and the largest number of Indo-Guyanese, in any part of the country. On the other hand, he seeks to hand dominion to the Indo -Guyanese in Berbice and North Essequibo, including Regions 7 and probably part of 8, amounting to approximately half of the country being under the control of about 20 percent of its population, not to mention the percentage of its wealth.

No ethnic group in Guyana, except the Amerindians can lay claim to any region or county of this country. Land rights and nationhood are the quintessential bases upon which Federal States have been established in every part of this world, albeit some evolved and others used devolution to correct the historical distortion and erosion of their sovereign rights.

There is therefore no basis or justification for Ravi Dev’s  roar.

The sound is occasioned but its direction reeks of serious sensitivity disorder, like a doctor with the right diagnosis but the wrong treatment. Let’s find the right way to make Guyana Rise.

Ravi Dev’s chronic penchant for misadventure on this matter, essays the need for close and critical examination of his other editorial ventures.

Yours faithfully,

Vincent Alexander

Replies sorted oldest to newest

Federalism does not equate to partition.

Jan 27,2018.

Source

Dear Editor,

Mr Vincent Alexander purported to respond to my column, ‘Federalism to end ethnic conflict’ in a letter: ‘I maintain that Dev’s Federalism proposal is highly flawed’ (SN, Jan 25). I say “purported” because Mr Alexander sedulously sought to equate “Federalism” with “partition”, which it certainly is not. A Federal Republic, for instance, the US, remains a single country. Residents of each state/province would be free to move and live in another state/province.

Mr Alexander correctly noted I claimed: “In a society where the majority ethnic groups each constitute majorities in different areas of the country, political devolution offers the largest number of incentives toward addressing ethnic insecurities”. But he excised the topic sentence of the paragraph: “I propose that Guyana be reconstituted as a Federal Republic, even as a coalition government be formed at such a republic’s centre.”

Mr Alexander then proceeded to attack a strawman he created by suggesting that the states/provinces in the Federal Republic would somehow be unfair to African Guyanese. In addition to being “flawed”, my Federal proposal was, “Indo-centric and non-recognition of the contribution of other Guyanese to the development of Guyana; and their collective right to its patrimony.” And this is where Mr Alexander reveals the real basis of his and most African-Guyanese rejection of federalism as a possible way to ease our ethnically based political tensions.

As Mr Alexander notes, in a federalized Guyana, in specific states/provinces some specified devolved powers (“competencies”) will be in the hands of the state/province’s administration to the extent they form majorities there. Why does he object to this? When we proposed the Federal Republic, the PPP was in office and it was possible they could rule in perpetuity based on the numbers of their mainly Indian supporters, and this created an African Ethnic Security Dilemma in the “majoritarian” polity. Federalism, we pointed out, would offer other groups in some state/province to have an opportunity to experience executive office, albeit at a lower level than the central government. Today, with the African-dominated APNU in office, why shouldn’t other groups be afforded the same opportunity?

But how can the proposal be “racist”, of all things, if with Indians now below 39% and decreasing exponentially, the African Security Dilemma is now gone and they have as equal a chance as any other group of leading the coalition at the centre? As they do now. And what this coalition, which was supposed to be “multiracial” with the addition of the AFC, has demonstrated is one cannot trust the beneficence of dominant partners in coalitions.

But Mr Alexander reveals his concern when he claims Indo-Guyanese would deny other groups – read Africans ‒ access to Guyana’s “collective patrimony”. How? Mr Alexander argues as if governance at lower levels would translate into ownership of resources. Is Mr Alexander projecting from the ethnically skewed manner in which the national patrimony is presently being distributed by the central APNU government? Or redistributed as in sugar?

As concededly an avowed proponent of “devolution” Mr Alexander would know that the only practical difference between our present regional system and a federal system is the “competencies” of the latter ‒ such as Police functions, local development, local taxation and spending ‒ which are constitutionally entrenched and cannot be manipulated as they have been since the eighties, by the central government.

Would he deny even these to other groups? Isn’t he ensuring Guyana’s continuing instability?

Yours faithfully,

 Ravi Dev

Django

Dem coolie majority doan understand de social, dem only concern bout dem individual. Dem like Regan and Tatcha. Dem go evade tax in dem coolie area and den have to run and beg dem same blackman foh help. Watch and see. 

FM

Mr. Dev federalism will lead to Nigeria in Guyana.  An Independent Sovereign country for East Indians of Guyana, Douglas who love their Guyanese East Indian Heritage and Allies of the Guyanese East Indian people is the only workable solution.

Prashad

Add Reply

×
×
×
×
×
Link copied to your clipboard.
×
×