However, while this chase will continue to be unproductive, let's examine their scramble to construct and reconstruct ethnic conflict in Guyana.

Numerous political commentaries claim that racism is rampant in Guyana, and that the elected PPP/Civic Government only represents Indian interests.

What has emerged since the last elections, say the commentaries, is a sharpened polarisation of the races - Africans and Indians. Their solution to this racial and ethnic divide, is power sharing.

Allegations of racism constitute the main theme of these political commentaries. Let these accusers present the evidence of discriminatory practices.

These discussions and emotional outpourings of racism have mainly been projected by fringe elements within the East Indian and African groups.

However, Guyana has experienced periodic ethnic violence solely at election times.

If we accept that the society is plagued with ethnic conflict, the question then that pops up is why this violence is not unleashed throughout time and space. Societies extensively racist exhibit almost permanent ethnic violence between the dominant and subordinate groups.

Is Guyana a deeply divided society? When is a society considered to be deeply divided?

Is ethnic conflict happening because it's in the blood?

If it's in the blood, then it may be due to genetics. Is ethnic conflict behaviour learned?

People in an intensely divided society identify themselves by their ethnic group. Where people in those societies experience inequality and discrimination based on ethnicity, those societies have the capacity to explode in hostility and violence.

Blood and culture
This ethnic conflict tends to be commonly explained by 'blood' and 'culture'.

How authentic is the 'blood' explanation? Are there other explanations?

The CornerHouse Briefing (1999) written by Nicholas Hildyard pointed out that "Blood" and "Culture" have long persisted universally with "commonsense" explanations for ethnic conflict. He suggested that hatred between Muslim and Serb or between Hutu and Tutsi, must be "in the blood." (Keane, 1996); the same can be said of possible or alleged hatred between East Indians and Africans in Guyana.

But when we inspect below the surface of ethnic conflict, the superficiality and falseness of "blood" or "culture" explanations are soon exposed (Appadurai, 1996).

"Tribal hatred" comes not from "nature" or from a primordial "culture", but of "a complex web of politics, economics, history, psychology and a struggle for identity" (Keane, 1996).

Fergal Keane, a BBC Africa correspondent, explains the genocide of one ethnic group by another ethnic group in Rwanda in 1994, thus:

"Like many of my colleagues, I drove into [Rwanda] believing the short stocky ones had simply decided to turn on the tall thin ones because that was the way it has always been. Yet now, two years later...I think the answer is very different.

"What happened in Rwanda was the result of cynical manipulation by powerful political and military leaders. Faced with the choice of sharing some of their wealth and power with the [insurgent] Rwandan Patriotic Front, they chose to vilify that organisation's main support group, the Tutsis...The Tutsis were characterised as vermin. Inyenzi in kinyarwanda - cockroaches who should be stamped on without mercy...In much the same way as the Nazis exploited latent anti-Semitism in Germany, so did the forces of Hutu extremism identify and whip into murderous frenzy the historical sense of grievance against the Tutsis...This was not about tribalism first and foremost but about preserving the concentration of wealth and power in the hands of the elite."

Keane insists that ethnic conflict is socially constructed.

In Guyana, race and ethnic conflict is both socially and politically constructed.

The ethnic conflict is not genetic or inborn and not even inevitable.

Fringe-minded people steeped in sustaining their self-interests and extremists create the ethnic conflict. These are prejudiced people who thrive on other people's frustrations and even manufacture and drive these aggravations.

These highly prejudiced people carry an authoritarian or totalitarian personality. They perceive numerous threats to their world, really insist that situations are either right or wrong, and are affected by ambiguity.

Constructing and reconstructing ethnic conflict may be functional for the fringe elements in the society because it's perceived as an aid and the only way for them to gain backdoor entrance to political power.

Determining ethnic conflict
Given the social and political construction and reconstruction of ethnic conflict, how, then, can we determine and explain the state of race and ethnic conflict in this society?

Marger (1997) feels that the response lies in the answer to four questions.

(1) What are the types of intergroup relations among ethnics? Here, we assess the levels of competition, conflict, accommodation, and cooperation among all ethnic groups in Guyana.

Keep in mind that in Guyana, most of these manifest ethnic conflicts occur periodically at election times. It is significant to remind ourselves that a recurrent theme in ethnic conflicts is the manipulative role of ethnic leaders who mobilise their ethnic kind against other ethnic groups. These leaders, perceived as extremists, engage in outbidding; outbidding refers to a situation in which extremist leaders condemn moderation with other ethnics as a sell-out.

(2) What is the ranking system of ethnic groups? Here, we evaluate the extent to which ethnic groups are treated differently and given unequal amounts of valued resources. These resources refer to wealth, prestige, and power that impact education, occupation, and income; education, occupation, and income are the three indicators used to measure an individual's socioeconomic status (SES).

Again, if only one ethnic group controls political and economic power, then only members of that particular group typically would have a moderate to high SES. Each ethnic group's SES will give a sense as to the level of its access to wealth, power, and prestige.

As an example, the major ethnic groups in Guyana are well represented among the SSEE (Common Entrance Examination) as well as among the CXC Examination successes. Generally, for income and occupation, the SES for both African Guyanese and East Indian Guyanese at similar class level, is relatively equal.

We can take social marginalisation as another example of the comparable SES of both major ethnic groups. Social marginalisation where people are deprived of full participation in the society unquestionably is not a characteristic feature in the Guyana public service.

Today, with a greater ethnic mix in the public service, comparable socioeconomic status between East Indians and Africans, and the evolving structures of political inclusiveness through the Dialogue Joint Committees, Constitutional Amendments, Constitutional Commissions, and the role of the Opposition, and impressive budgetary allocations in African-dominated Neighbourhood Democratic Councils and Regional Democratic Councils, the talk of social marginalisation of Africans is totally absurd. Refer to my preliminary study on marginalisation which can be obtained from GINA (Government Information Agency).

(3) Do we have a dominant ethnic group in Guyana? There are two major ethnic groups - East Indians and Africans - in terms of numbers, and both are beneficiaries of comparable shares in education, occupation and income. For supporting data, refer to CXC and SSEE examination results and budgetary allocations for the Regions, etc.

(4) What are the long-term outcomes of relations among these ethnic groups? Consider the fact that ethnic groups in Guyana are moving toward pluralism not assimilation to a dominant value system, evidenced by an intense cultural autonomy.

Based on the responses to the aforementioned questions, Guyana, as a multiethnic society, is deeply divided if it is characterised by hostility and violence; unequal and different treatment; prejudice and discrimination used to sustain ethnic inequality; and assimilation and/or cultural genocide.

On the other hand, Guyana, as a multiethnic society, is not deeply divided if it is typified by cooperation and accommodation; relatively similar treatment; minimum ethnic inequality; and pluralism.

Let the Guyanese people decide on the basis of the aforesaid questions whether or not Guyana is deeply divided.

Three structural conditions that can contribute to ethnic conflict are authoritarian rule, exclusion of people on the basis of ethnicity, and the presence of socioeconomic deprivation and inequity based on ethnic origins.

Clearly, there is not only democracy through the ballot box but also institutional democracy, as evidenced by the spectacular outcomes for all ethnics in education, health, etc.

The preliminary study on marginalisation shows adequate participation of the two major ethnic groups in the occupational settings.