The question, then, is why is this violence not manifested through time and space? The perceived ethnic conflict seems to evade into protracted hibernation a few weeks after each election. But societies extensively racist do exhibit almost permanent ethnic conflict, both manifest and latent, between the dominant and subordinate ethnic groups.

In any case, a determination has to be made on whether this ethnic conflict, invariably, is a product of racial prejudice and racial discrimination.

If racial prejudice and discrimination are validated, then racism prevails. But in seeking out this determination, we must also examine other factors contributing to ethnic conflict. Latent and manifest insecurity, ethnic fear, and ethnic mistrust, are really symptoms of institutionalised or emergent ethnic conflict as well as the potent engines that drive ethnic polarisation.

But we still need to determine the causes of ethnic conflict.

However, in attempting to eliminate racism, a key indicator is racial discrimination. Racial discrimination has to be identified and measured, in order to demonstrate the extent of racism for policy formulation and implementation purposes.

The Guyana society has experienced excessive rhetorical battering on race relations problems over the last 10 years, to the point of naivety. The seeds of racial and ethnic discord were sown in the British colonial era, with revitalised reinforcement in the 21 years of the Burnham/Hoyte Administration up until 1989.

Much has been done in the PPP/Civic governmental period since 1992 to address racial discrimination issues. More work, integral to dealing with these concerns, has to be effected.

It is widely accepted that racism is an ideology that depicts another group as being congenitally inferior to one's own group. This situation of racial inequality is worse when racism is injected into rules, procedures, and practices of organisations that deny opportunities and equal rights to certain racial groups or individuals; such a scenario is referred to as institutionalised discrimination (Schaeffer and Lamm).

'Race' refers to a group of people who perceive themselves and are perceived by others as different because of biologically-inherited characteristics (Henslin). Biologically, it is not possible to identify a genetically-isolated group which has special gene frequencies. Therefore, no pure race exists. Even physical characteristics, such as, skin color, cannot appropriately describe a group as distinctive from another group.

Migration, exploration, and invasion, according to Schaeffer and Lamm, have destroyed the concept of pure races, and have produced increased racial miscegenation. Race, therefore, is socially constructed by power holders through stereotypical images to sustain the subordination of racial minority groups. People who control the levers of political and economic power give a social meaning to the biological characteristics of a person's race, such as, skin colour.

Ethnicity denotes a group of people with common cultural characteristics, as having the same language, place of origin, and values; persons who share these cultural characteristics belong to the same ethnic group. An ethnic group, also, has a distinctive identity (Curry, Jibou, and Schwirian), i.e., individuals have interpreted their ethnic roles as integral to their self-esteem, sense of control, and their ability to resolve problems. Ethnicity refers, then, to a person's distinctive culture and unique identity.

TAINTED WITH SUPERFICIALITY
Three reasons are advanced by Cross to explain why a society characterised by diverse ethnic origins, and with British colonial experience, would, indeed, display racial problems.

Firstly, in the colonial period, race as a factor was used to classify the colonised; secondly, the belief in the inequality of the human races was applied to maintain the social order; and finally, the effect of the Westminster model with its emphasis on the two-party system, is certain in societies like Guyana, with two major ethnic groups, to produce racial cleavages. The first two reasons historically have been substantiated.

The third reason is tainted with superficiality. An implication of the third reason is that a change in the parliamentary system from a two-party model to a system of power-sharing, would resolve race issues.

Numerous parliamentary changes in multiracial societies have not brought about the desired changes in race relations. The United States Congressional system is a good case in point. With all the democratic elements enshrined in Congress and the Constitution reinforced by Congressional concern for justice and equality, the U.S. still remains inherently a racist society.

Racism heaped upon vulnerable minorities in the U.S. will not be solved by effecting changes in the Congressional system.

Parliamentary systems are mere conduits for the protection of vested power interests in the society. The credibility of this remark can be clearly seen in works that address the question, "who governs America?" Chances are that political systems could make meaningful resolution to racism, but only if the people are the architects of the parliamentary system.

Political systems are shaped by the dominant class interests of society. So it is not the parliamentary system, but the roots of inequality that primarily are targeted to address race relations problems.

Race problems derived from inequality, are grounded in the class base of society. Any attempt to address race and ethnic issues must include, firstly, a baseline understanding of all ethnic groups' socioeconomic status (SES) which comprises education, occupation, and income/wealth.

This baseline data will identify strategic areas of racial discrimination that need a plan of corrective action. The corrective action will be policy interventions that are class-driven.

We also need to understand how the various ethnic groups in Guyana came together, and the nature and type of their interaction in different social classes, over these many years. In this regard, some strategic questions need to focus the discussion on class, which could be the basis for policy formulation in any Ethnic Relations Commission.

Four strategic questions in race and ethnic relations, as applied by Marger are:

** The nature of inter-group relations. Assess the levels of competition, conflict accommodation, and cooperation among all ethnic groups in Guyana.

** The ranking system of ethnic groups. Evaluate the extent to which ethnic groups are treated differently and given unequal amounts of valued resources to do with education, occupation, and income (SES). These resources refer to wealth, prestige, and power. What the consequences of unequal and different treatment mean, can be determined.

** The methods used by the dominant ethnic group to maintain its position at the top of the political and ethnic hierarchy. Determine whether the dominant ethnic group uses prejudice and discrimination to sustain its power interests. What attempts are made to maintain a system of ethnic inequality, could be a useful area of inquiry.

** The long-term outcomes of relations among these ethnic groups. Consider whether the ethnic groups are moving toward pluralism or assimilation, or combinations of these. Examine the social forces that support any of these potpourris.

THEORETICAL SUPPORT OF RACISM
Underlying these four questions is the following theoretical support of racism, as outlined by Marger:

** Racist thought accepts that differences among groups are innate, and unlikely to change.

** Racist thought is ethnocentric. People with racist ideas see ethnic out-groups as inferior, and any interaction with them will result in a degeneration of their group. Racist thought does not mirror reality; it is mythical. Over time through frequent usage, the racist thinking becomes accepted as the beliefs, values, and norms of society.

** Racist thought is prevalent where physical differences are quite visible.

The proposed Ethnic Relations Commission could use this framework appropriately to the benefit of all Guyanese.

To date, no serious study of race and ethnic relations, based on the scientific method, focusing on these four questions, has been administered in Guyana. Yet, numerous critical remarks on racism in Guyana are frequently made in the media that are unsubstantiated and lacking scientific integrity. Policy formulations have to be grounded on reliable and valid data.

This Commission will need a research and a social action component, using the scientific method. A database on racial discrimination can evolve through the research process. In fact, in an incidental sense, a macro study that is, indeed, urgent is to examine the social psychology of voting.

This study is long overdue, as all the premature politicians preaching impending doom out of a false concern for resolving racism, revisit the racial turf at election times to gain power through the backdoor.

In this electoral 'race' climate, self-appointed protectors of East Indians perceive themselves to be more 'Indian' than those who reject their 'medicine' for Guyana. The same can be said for self-appointed protectors of Africans. This type of behaviour is a political farce.

Let us engage in fruitful endeavors, applying scientific tools, to understand the state of race and ethnic relations in Guyana, and stop this naive race rhetoric. (Dr. Misir is a regular contributor to the Chronicle)