In lieu of an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content:

25 THE GUYANA DIASPORA AND HOMELAND CONFLICT RESOLUTION Perry Mars The Guyana diaspora can best be viewed as a subset of the Caribbean diaspora overseas, although it demonstrates some peculiar features. It is part of the reverse migration trend from the colonies to the metropolitan centers in Europe and North America, which had its main beginnings in the twentieth century following several centuries of forced migration of various peoples, mainly from Africa and Asia, as slaves or indentured servants for colonial plantations throughout the region. The critical peculiarity of the Guyana diaspora resides in the fact that while for the Caribbean as a whole the descendants of African slaves constitute the overwhelming bulk of the population (about 90 percent), Guyana is the only Caribbean country with a majority of Asians, who constitute about 50 percent of its population. This means that, contrary to the suggestion of the main literature on Caribbean migrations or transnationalism (Goulbourne; Harvard University), the Guyana diaspora is not a culturally homogeneous one, but one that seriously reflects the history and contours of the ethnic, cultural, and political bifurcation and conflict that pervade the Guyana scene at home. Yet, because Guyana itself is striving to become “one people, one nation ” and with “one destiny,” as the Guyana official motto itself stipulates , it is important to view the Guyana diaspora as at least potentially integrated, with unified aspirations toward peace and progressive development for the original home country. Indeed the diaspora is not home, but mainly a place to expand one’s horizons and seek better opportunities for the life one wishes to have at home (see Gordon). For that reason most Guyana diasporan individuals keep returning constantly to their homeland , and investing (mainly through remittances) in the private development of the families they left behind. This chapter, however, looks beyond recognition of the Guyana diaspora strictly as a source of monetary and material contributions (remittances and financial investments), and reconsiders this albeit loose over483 484 Perry Mars seas grouping primarily as a fount of knowledge and expertise relevant to the management and organization of development strategies, including the resolution of political and ethnic conflict, in the homeland. The concept of development here is viewed in terms of a particular relationship between government and people which fosters expansions in the range of freedom and opportunities for all the people of that particular society (see Sen, Development). It is further recognized here that a major facilitating condition for the flourishing of such development as freedom is the establishment or realization of a relatively stable and manageable political environment. Thus the existence or persistence of domestic political and ethnic instability is recognized here as at least complicating, if not directly impeding or negating, the development process. Authoritative efforts toward resolution of political and ethnic conflicts are therefore necessary for establishing basic conditions for political and economic development in the particular society. Contributions toward conflict resolution are approached both indirectly, via the possible reduction of poverty levels which feed criminalized violence and political conflicts within Guyanese communities, and directly, through the actual role of prominent overseas Guyanese individuals and organizations in mediating the conflict situation at higher national political levels in Guyana, or actively supporting the domestic forces that conduce toward the reduction of violent political conflicts in the society. More specifically, this chapter examines the actual and potential contributions of the Guyanese diaspora abroad, particularly in North America, to the resolution of serious national crises, particularly violent political and ethnic conflicts, at home in Guyana. The focus is on the post-1992 period, when Guyana returned to a democratic phase with free and fair elections, in contrast to the earlier, more authoritarian phase (1964–1985), which was characterized by harsh state repressive practices and the stymieing of democracy through blatant tinkering and rigging of the electoral process to maintain the then People’s National Congress (PNC) party rule. At the same time, however, the post-1992 period of rule by the People’s Progressive Party (PPP) represented a phase when political conflict in Guyana degenerated into both criminalized and armed guerrilla activities combined with selective ethnic targeting, deadly dimensions of narco-gangsterism, and routinized military and police violence complemented by the operation of politicized death squads. T H E C O N F L I C T P R O B L E M The problem to be addressed is the persistence and escalation of political and ethnic conflict and the frustrating efforts to reorient the contending domestic forces toward...

Share