THE Ethnic Relations Commission (ERC) has been reconstituted and members have been making their rounds to our country’s leaders, notably President David Granger and Leader of the Opposition (LOO), Bharrat Jagdeo.

During both visits, the ERC heard of our leaders’ commitment in promoting harmony with President David Granger warning that Guyana will remain an unequal society without greater social cohesion; and he stressed the importance of the body in helping to bring about this change.

The Guyanese leader also said that the ERC is perhaps the single most important commission in existence in Guyana at this time, noting that elsewhere in the world, there is a resurgence of xenophobia and disorder based on ethnic differences. He said that the resuscitation and work of the ERC therefore, is preventative action to ensure that ethnic harmony is maintained. “Without a greater sense of social cohesion, this country will remain unequal and anything we try to achieve, politically or economically, will be difficult…Society has the potential for social cohesion, but we must not allow divisive elements to separate us…there is more that unites us than separate us,” he said.
For his part, the LOO called on the ERC to do a fact-based study on the period 1964 to the present, so as to vindicate their argument that Afro-Guyanese fared better during successive PPP regimes.

This constitutional body, enshrined in Article 212 of the Guyana Constitution, truthfully should always be in operation. That its function was undermined, stymied, and politicised under the previous government which gave rise to concern about its usefulness, careful examination and appreciation of the services it is intended to provide make it a vital and necessary institution to society.

Ours is a society where tensions, accusations and counter-accusations towards and against individuals and groups are daily occurrences, though these are often publicly manifest in the forms of race, class, politics, governance, religion, and sexual orientation. The importance of ferreting out the credibility of any of these claims, and the extent to ensure that where a legitimate grouse or discrimination exists, how it could be resolved and recurrence minimised or eliminated, is tough work.

The work of the ERC does not require the faint of heart nor non-committed. It entails continual gathering of evidence, maintaining open minds and open-door policy, being au fait and keeping abreast of universal declarations, international conventions and charters, and local laws. To be effective, it has to not only function as a receiver and analyser of complaints, but as advocate to bring about positive changes to realise harmonious relations between and amongst the people.

It may very well find that one of its roles in promoting education and training programmes in pursuit of arriving at ethnic peace and harmony will meet a society wedded to myths, which would require much undoing. One such is securing acceptance that diversity is strength, no one is superior to the other, and historical physical genetic appearances and religious beliefs are traits to be proud of not defiled, denied or ridiculed.

In our polarised society, treating each other with respect and dignity requires ongoing conversations that allow for ventilation of perceptions — real or contrived — opportunities for recourse, and corrective actions taken where necessary. Politicisation of such an institution, in our suspicious environment, is bound to see its credibility being brought into disrepute and it would help in the re-establishment if such is avoided at all costs.
Whoever is entrusted the responsibility to be a member of the commission ought to know that this is hard and diligent work that requires commitment to human decency, growth and development. This is not a commission to be trifled with. Where no interest lies in working assiduously to improve ethnic relations as against ethnic dominance and marginalisation, and recognition that the welfare of one group is intertwined with the welfare of others, should respectfully not sit on this commission.

The performance of the ERC under the chairmanship of Bishop Juan Edghill, who subsequently served as a minister in the PPP/C government and is a serving Member of Parliament of the party, though the right to freedom of association must be respected, the fist under which he led that institution left little room as to what was his agenda and to whom he felt he was in service.

It would not be an untruthful statement in saying that the commission had instances where its decisions and work were not driven by objectivity, but that of furthering an agenda that not only denied the fundamental rights and freedoms of others, but set out to promote what the body was established to correct. Some such instances were the suppression of academic freedom, attempts to marginalise voices in society, and absence of rigour and due diligence required of research in order to objectively pronounce.

The function of the ERC includes providing equality of opportunity between persons of different ethnic groups and to promote harmony and good relations between and among groups. The institution also has the responsibility to encourage and create respect for religious, cultural and other forms of diversity in our plural society. This includes promoting and encouraging the acceptance and respect by all segments of the society of the social identity and cultural inheritance of all ethnic groups. The goals of the ERC in this polarised society are noble, timely, and are needed like yesterday.