ROAR leader, Ravi Dev says the imbalance in the armed forces should be rectified by some form of affirmative action in part to avoid any resentment that Indo-Guyanese are not pulling their weight.

Indo-Guyanese had to “bear an equal share” in the defence of the country, Dev told members of the Disciplined Forces Commission on Thursday. He said because many Indians did not serve in the forces it had engendered feelings of resentment towards them for not carrying their weight.

The Commission of Enquiry was set up by the National Assembly to review the operations of the disciplined forces, including the army and the police and make recommendations for their improvement.

Justice of Appeal Ian Chang chairs the commission which includes former Attorney-General Charles Ramson SC, former National Security Adviser, Brigadier (rtd) David Granger, attorney-at-law, Anil Nandlall and Irish human rights activist, Maggie Beirne.

Dev believes that if the forces are more ethnically reflective citizens will see them as more legitimate and impartial, which he sees as pre-conditions to their effectiveness.

“In the reality of Guyana the police force, especially, is seen in such a manner by Indian-Guyanese as ethnically skewed...” Dev said, explaining that the Afro-Guyanese majority in the forces had created ethnic insecurity in Indians.

“What may happen if the situation gets out of control?” he wondered out loud, “...if the political disagreement spills over into... ethnic conflict?”

He was also concerned about the pressures such a situation may put on the people within the forces to remain professional: “If [the] troops are put into a position where they have to make a choice, professional standards [may] stretch and [may be] broken.”

Dev’s solution is the implementation of the 1965 International Commission of Jurists report which recommended that recruitment be 75% Indo-Guyanese over a five-year period to correct the imbalance. He said other races should be recruited too, and changes should be made to accommodate their religious, dietary and other cultural practices.

But he does not believe in setting quotas for recruitment, as the report recommends, since he said it could lower the standards of the institutions. Instead he advocates using an affirmative action plan to achieve targets or goals.

He conceded that this might be viewed as discrimination against Afro-Guyanese and acknowledged that it could be considered a violation of constitutional rights. But he pointed out that all laws or Government policies will affect particular groups of people more than they will others - like the recent Fiscal Amendment Act which provides for a presumptive tax on professionals. Thus he reasoned that the laws of the country already discriminate.

Dev, arguing on precedent set in the US Supreme Court, said there were established guidelines which would allow the discretion of the law to pass an affirmative-action plan that would affect certain categories, like ethnic groups. He said these guidelines would weigh the societal good in such a plan while the moral imperative would guide the legal one.

“ROAR is not looking for compensatory justice, we are looking prospectively at what kind of society we want to create... The greater good and what it will take to create that. We cannot be oblivious to the effect it will have on society. Afro-Guyanese historically [depend on] the state for mechanisms for their advancement. If we are to institute policies to recruit other groups to benefit it will have an adverse effect on them and Government will have to look at how it rectifies and deals with that repercussion.”

“Do you think that attempting any redress in the form you are advocating may not be possible unless something is done with the provisions [of Article 149 of the Constitution],” Ramson asked.

Article 149 guarantees protection from discrimination on the basis of race and other grounds.

Dev said constitutions allowed governments to act in the general welfare of society and with its recent amendments he believed the Article provided for rights in the positive and a space for these rights to be expressed.

“It has a clear talk of the State having a duty to ensure that these rights are exercised... the issue is from a societal good standpoint and we offer moral reasoning...”

Ramson asked Dev to look at the paragraph six of the Article (which gives special provisions for the welfare of Amerindians) and to consider whether a similar provision could be inserted, albeit for a limited time, to implement the ICJ recommendation.

“In a Constitution we can’t put in specific things,” Dev replied, reasoning that this could dilute the force of the law, “I would have thought someone would have challenged that by now.”

“Disproportionate ethnic representation. Should this justify ethnic discrimination?” Justice Chang asked.

He considered that if the forces are balanced ethnically merely for the sake of Indian security fears, it could result in an equitable division of racial insecurity fears.

But Dev asserted that Afro-Guyanese security fears were politically based and not in the composition of the forces. He said these particular fears would have to be addressed by the People’s Progressive Party, “which will have to concede its majority advantage for the societal good.”

Chang suggested, “...removing it may be a precondition for stability but that does not guarantee security. You might need to go further...”

Chang: “Ethnic balance per se may not lead to a police good. You don’t want the ethnic strife to be transposed into the police force. But you don’t want Indian security fears to persist?”

Dev: “The reality of Guyana is that we do live together peacefully most of the time... it is when we have to confront each other...”

Dev was unable to complete his testimony on Thursday and is to return before the Commission at a later date.