THE FUTURE OF ETHNIC POLITICS
According to the official results, electoral support for the PNC grew from 40.52 percent in 1964 to 55.81 percent in 1968, to 70.10 percent in 1973, to 77.66 percent in 1980, to 78.54 percent in 1985. Despite the ethnic voting patterns in 1957, 1961 and 1964 and internecine violence that lasted from 1962 to 1964, the PNC proclaimed after the 1964 elections that it had brought an end to inter-racial violence and discord and that ethnic harmony then prevailed.
As soon as the 1992 elections were over, in which the PNC obtained 42.31 percent of the votes, it claimed that ethnic disharmony had returned. It began to castigate the PPP Government with accusations that it was practicing marginalization and discrimination against African Guyanese. These accusations were later elevated to ethnic cleansing. More recently, representatives and supporters of the now named PNCR began to accuse the PPP/C Government of apartheid. Some accused the PPP/C of genocide. In the face of the collapse of the PNCR/APNU’s support in the recent general and regional elections, the PPP is now being accused of crimes against humanity by its alleged actions against African Guyanese.
Over the past thirty years the PNCR’s fundamental strategy was based on ensuring the united political support of African Guyanese based on the escalating accusations of harm being done by the PPP/C Government to African Guyanese. The intensity of the accusations is supplemented by orchestrated anti-Indian political violence after elections. This ended in 2001 but resumed in 2020. The whipping up of ethnic frenzy as the main political strategy of the PNCR/APNU had sustained a degree of political support in the vicinity of 40 percent from as far back as 1964. It remained the same in 1992.
In 2006 the PNCR obtained 34.07 percent of the votes and the AFC gained 8.43 percent. Some PNC supporters migrated to the AFC, notwithstanding its multi-ethnic leadership, because of dissatisfaction with the PNCR. That leadership changed after those disastrous results and the PNCR bounced back by the 2011 elections in which it obtained 40.81 percent. In coalition with the AFC in 2015 it won the majority of votes. This experience demonstrates that: 1. PNCR supporters are not averse toabandoning the PNCR if they are dissatisfied. 2. PNCR supporters would support a party that had a multi-ethnic leadership and whose main message is not one of ethnic solidarity. 3. Where the dissatisfaction of PNCR supporters is removed, they will return to supporting the PNCR. 4. Though not relevant to the issue being discussed here, it should be noted that for the 2011 elections a significant number of PPP supporters voted for the AFC.
The collapse in the electoral support of the PNCR/APNU at the recent elections on September 1, with its supporters transferring their allegiance en masse to a party, WIN, led by a wealthy Indian businessman, could potentially be sending several messages, namely: PNCR supporters are dissatisfied with the leadership of the PNCR; the message of ethnic discrimination ofPNCR supporters no matter how exaggerated the accusations, no longer resonate with supporters; PNCR supporters are looking for a new strategy – one that would bring economic benefits to them. It should be noted also that while reports suggest that among its own traditional supporters in some limited areas, the PPP/C did not perform as well as it should have, it attracted greater support from African Guyanese.
For the PNCR, Aubrey Norton is party leader and Terrence Campbell is parliamentary leader. The same dual leadership possibility was hinted at by the PNCR after 2006, but it never materialised. Whether Norton will survive the calamity and/or Campbell will have the capacity to nudge him out is yet to be seen. However, Campbell has the undoubted capacity to assess and understand the message of former PNCR supporters who transitioned to WIN, namely, that ethnic politics is getting them nowhere and they are looking to benefit somehow from the economic developments. While the scale of the disaster for the PNCR in 2025 is substantially greater than in 2006, (it obtained 17.79 of the votes as opposed to 34.07 percent in 2006), Campbell will hope that the PNCR can bounce back as it did in 2011. The outcome of the legal troubles of WIN’s leader would be a factor.
But will Campbell do what is necessary? Will his analysis reveal to him the bankruptcy of the PNCR’s ethnic advocacy over many decades and the search of PNCR’s supporters for a way out of “losing” and for a more promising political path. If he does draw these lessons from the results, can he persuade Norton, who is steeped in PNCR’s traditional approaches after a lifetime in politics, that while he remains leader, he would need to work to develop new approaches? And quite apart from Norton, would he be able to persuade David Hinds, who has a loud megaphone and will sit in Parliament, to moderate his message of African Guyanese disempowerment and seek other, perhaps more creative, avenues of advocacy such as shared governance, which both Hinds and Norton supports. If Campbelladopts policies, or is allowed to do so, outside the PNCR’straditional parameters, which are now clearly unraveling, the future of ethnic politics is dim.
