OPINION: The attempted co-optation of African Emancipation celebrations: A Guyana perspective

Last Updated on Saturday, 17 August 2024, 14:50 by Writer

by Dr Nigel Westmaas

The commemoration of African emancipation in Guyana has increasingly transformed into a spectacle, where the central focus is on state sponsors and state presence rather than the historical and cultural significance of the event itself. The image of political leaders of the state dancing or prancing at the forefront of such events shifts the narrative from a genuine recognition of emancipation’s painful, impactful history to a form of idolatry, where the leaders of the ruling party become the focal point rather than the substance and significance of emancipation for the affected communities. Vague references to “progress” and “prosperity” substitute for addressing directly, with the participation of all African Guyanese organisations via public education, the systemic connections between enslavement, emancipation and the present. This performative strategy by the current state rings hollow. It can lead to a dilution or sanitisation of the true and ongoing meaning of Emancipation, reducing it to a series of state-sanctioned performances rather than a powerful commemoration of resistance and liberation. The African psyche, which is deeply connected to cultural and historical identity, can suffer from this erosion of genuine engagement, leading to feelings of alienation and loss of dignity and cultural grounding.

In Guyana, this dynamic is evident in both the attempted and actual co-optation by the regime in power. Co-optation generally refers to the process by which a group or individual is absorbed or assimilated into a broader system or organisation, often to negate potential and actual opposition or to gain support. This can occur in various domains, such as politics, business, or social movements. Co-optation can serve as a selective strategy to bring critics, opponents, or potential challengers into the fold, integrating them into the existing power structure with the intention of neutralising the threat they might pose from outside the system.

Amid flowery promises of “inclusivity” for “all Guyanese” on Emancipation Day, the state and its highest leadership often deflect or ignore the concerns of long-standing African Guyanese organisations. These groups, which initiated and sustained Emancipation Day activities for decades, now face the politically expedient threat of being targeted for demolition through deprivation for funding. This tactic on the part of the PPP/C government includes the creation of rival Black organisations, fully funded or associated with the state’s largesse, with the aim of producing more compliant Emancipation Day events that align with the state’s fiction of the “One Guyana” ethos. This approach is intended to “buy” Emancipation Month, rendering it a tool for state propaganda and reframing the narrative of emancipation to fit the state’s political agenda.

As one can observe from state media, there has been no in-depth analysis of what “emancipation” truly means for the descendants of the enslaved, nor any serious discussion of issues like “reparations” or its significance in the present day. The state will not disclose which sectors of society predominantly receive state contracts in Guyana (nor is it a favour to disclose such information; make no mistake about it, these are taxpayers dollars we are talking about, and thus the Guyanese public has a right to know), nor will it address the broader implications of past enslaved rebellions, such as those in 1763, 1823, and the Maroon rebellions in Guyana. More directly, there is no intent by the state to integrate the histories of these events into the education curriculum. Similarly, there will be no frank discussion of the efforts by African Guyanese to establish village movements and how these were systematically undermined by the colonial state through the introduction of measures like labour immigration to undermine and control the workforce, increasingly restrictive land policies, and poll tax ordinances (issues that cannot be divorced from the contemporary moment and discussions of the state of African ancestral lands). The state will also avoid addressing other rebellions that occurred post-emancipation which involved inter-ethnic conflict and will refrain from a candid examination of these painful issues, despite their relevance to the historical and contemporary political landscape of Guyanese society. Moreover, the state will not engage in discussions about the worst form of global racism—anti-Black racism—and its intergenerational consequences for Black people, including those in Guyana.

This “emancipation capture” serves to validate the state’s attempt to use Emancipation celebrations as a tool for political gain, without addressing the difficult questions facing the wider community, including the current and historical economic conditions of the African Guyanese population. Despite the opportunities presented by Emancipation Month, successive post-independence regimes have been reluctant to fundamentally address these issues, focusing instead on political expediency. The current state media, in its coverage of Emancipation events, often reduces the long, complex, and horrific chapters of African Guyanese history to a mere backdrop for political theatre. This co-optation and PR opportunity essentially diminishes the potential for genuine recognition and celebration of African heritage and culture.

This trend is not unique to Guyana. Similar patterns of co-optation are observed in various societies, including Colombia and Ecuador where state racism is rife. In these cases, the state absorbs once-oppositional individuals and sectors of civil society into the government apparatus, often through the strategic use of state financial resources or by offering these individuals a share in the privilege of power, effectively turning the process into a calculated economic transaction.

The case of Afro-Colombians serves as a pertinent example. Rather than acknowledging their cultural differences as a basis for their claims to special rights, Afro-Colombians are often seen as deserving beneficiaries of the state’s generosity due to the hardships they face. This approach undermines the legitimacy of their cultural and historical claims by framing their relationship with the state as one based on dependency and misfortune rather than empowerment and autonomy. They are objects of charity rather than historical agents who are entitled to justice.

In Guyana, politicians and political parties have always performed symbolic and respectful gestures toward ethnic and religious events for all the communities that make up Guyanese society. To be clear, there should be no issue with heads of state or ministers attending events related to ethnic commemorations like Indian Arrival Day, Amerindian Heritage Month, or Emancipation Month. Even colonial governors have attended Emancipation Day activities in “British Guiana” as well as the famous fairs organised by the League of Coloured People. These appearances, while giving temporary visibility, never resulted in any substantive change in the lot of African Guyanese. In the period of the modern political movement from 1953, Premier Jagan and Prime Minister Burnham attended ethnic events all the way to independence and in the post-independence period this trend continued. The problem arises when these moments are exploited by the state to divide, co-opt, and create a spectacle for strategic, political purposes. Instead of engaging with political rivals at a national event, they manipulate the activities of Emancipation Month for their own political ends, exposing the ruling regime’s unsavory tactics and their open leveraging of oil revenues.

Let us go further. The two prime ministers who served under the PPP/Civic regime since 1992 have never appeared to embrace their own history or leverage their positions to advocate for the history and equality of African Guyanese. This raises the question of whether they were initially chosen for the usual Guyanese optics of placing a figurehead to suggest “racial capture” for strategic electoral purposes and not at the behest of open, honest changemaking of the national political culture. The current Prime Minister, Brigadier Mark Phillips, expressed ambiguity about the issue of African reparations in a book on the Demerara enslaved uprising of 1823. He was quoted in the text as stating, inter alia, “reparations yes, but it must not be forced on the British…” More importantly, he expressed the “view that we can’t be stuck in the past,” and further stated, “I hope we can reach a conclusion that is acceptable to both sides.” In asserting that “we can’t be stuck in the past,” the Prime Minister suggests that the historical traumas of slavery, colonialism, and systemic racism are no longer relevant or should be set aside in favor of a forward-looking agenda. This viewpoint risks fostering a form of historical amnesia, where the deep wounds and legacies of oppression that have shaped African descendants’ experiences are minimised or ignored. Emancipation, in this light, is reduced to a single historical event (the abolition of slavery), devoid of its continuous struggle for justice, equality, and recognition.

The challenge in Guyana, therefore, is to reclaim the narrative of African emancipation from the grips of political co-optation. It is essential to refocus these celebrations on their organic and active historical roots, emphasising the resilience, cultural diversity, and contributions of African descendants and the difficult discussions that flow from that history. We must not hide aspects of past and present indignity of African Guyanese behind simple, empty generalisations and platitudes about freedom. Other examples include co-opting a few African Guyanese into the cabinet and ruling political party to give the impression that racial issues have been resolved, refusing to engage with African Guyanese representatives who are not aligned with the PPP, or using handouts and large-scale music events as a form of bribery (and stereotyping).

To move beyond symbolism, governments and institutions in power must engage in substantive actions and reforms that address the root causes of racial inequality and injustice. Achieving social peace and racial harmony requires more than mere optics or superficial gestures at emancipation. It demands recognition of the dignity, in this case of emancipation month, of African Guyanese irrespective of their political or social affiliations, and respectful, unvarnished dialogue and real, impactful change.