PM Mark Phillips and the PPP seek to convince us that once they can show that the government has spent money in this or that AfroGuyanese community (e,g., 25 bridge repair contracts in Buxton) and that Afro-Guyanese have benefitted from this or that national program (e.g., ‘Because We Care’ cash grants), then accusations of racial discrimination against the PPP are baseless.

Accusers therefore must be, as the PM puts it, “creating mischief and drumming up racial strife within our communities.” The PM and other racial discrimination deniers call for evidence of its presence. In so doing, they cast the PPP as sinless, paint Guyana as a human rights utopia, and

question our sense of reality. Discrimination deniers then try to produce evidence of its absence, but end up committing the “fallacy of the lonely fact.”

More disturbing, racial discrimination deniers want us to have no fear under a PPP government despite its pathological obsession to totally control the distribution of state resources and opportunities—land, contracts, jobs, cash grants, permits, etc. I do not know PM Phillips at all, but if he considers bridge repair contracts for Buxtonians as a sufficient approach in managing our conflict-prone multiethnic society, then he may be illequipped.

That said, I wish here to shift the conversation on racial discrimination and discuss the fixes that should be embedded regardless of where one stands on the existence and extent of the problem. Can we agree on the following fixes, briefly listed in random order?

(i) Let us totally transform our Ethnic Relations Commission (ERC) by arranging extensive technical and managerial assistance from the UK Equality and Human Rights Commission (EHRC). This collaboration must include overhauling our legislation on anti-discrimination and equality of opportunity and, most critically, the infusing, enforcing, and normalizing of non-discrimination practices in every public agency. I selected the EHRC only because I am familiar with its vast experience in combatting all forms of discrimination (including gender) in public sector employment, procurement, and service delivery.

(ii) Let us finally activate the suggestion (made by Ravi Dev, most often) of requiring an Ethnic Impact Assessment for every major government program or policy. Such assessments must identify and mitigate/eliminate problems that may unduly (intentionally or unintentionally) create or exacerbate racial inequalities.

(iii) In 2009, our Parliament enacted the Fiscal Transfer Act “to provide for the formulation and implementation of objective criteria for the purpose of the allocation of resources to and the garnering of resources by the local democratic organs.” What has happened to this Act? Activating and revising it can minimize the present discrimination against opposition-led local councils.

(iv) As regards the charges of racism and political victimization in the hiring and firing of government appointees, a good solution lies in adopting the US approach whereby the definition and identification of political appointees and positions are agreed to upfront and codified in legislation.

(v) Our social protection system (especially its social assistance component) must become structured and professionalized. As in every other country, our delivery system must be managed and manned by a modern public service, and not by ministers and other party hacks walking around with the people’s money in bags.

(vi) Given the historically built-in ethnic (and gender) lopsidedness in the award of government contracts, social procurement (defined as the use of the public procurement system to address social goals such as equality, social justice, and economic empowerment of targeted groups) must be introduced to reduce the discrimination caused by the sheer unevenness of the playing field. Several mechanisms (such as set-asides) have been used in the US, Canada, Malaysia, South Africa and Northern Ireland.

(v) “Real power begins where secrecy begins.” (Hannah Arend in the book “The Origins of Totalitarianism”). To promote transparency, countries empower citizens with the right to know or the right to information. In Guyana, we have the Access to Information Act.

To leverage it in the fight against discrimination, at least three actions are required: public authorities must be guided on the specific types of data that must be collected, stored, and made available; the public must be educated on the law and must gain confidence in its effectiveness; and the Commissioner of Information must be someone who understands his or her role as a public servant and an agent of social change.

I believe the APNU+AFC is far more likely to implement these and other fixes than the PPP.