THE DIASPORA.

 

The Diaspora: A Nation Beyond Its Borders

For decades, the Guyanese diaspora has been an influential extension of the homeland. Since the 1950s, successive waves of Guyanese emigrants have established communities across North America and Britain, particularly in Toronto, London, and Brooklyn. Though separated from their birthplace by thousands of miles, many have remained deeply connected to Guyana’s political, economic, and social life.

I call this community Region 11—an unofficial region whose influence extends beyond Guyana’s geographical boundaries. Its members have contributed financially to families at home, supported political movements, participated in national debates, and influenced the direction of successive governments.

The political significance of this diaspora is not new. The People’s National Congress (PNC), under Forbes Burnham, recognised the importance of overseas Guyanese communities. Later, the return of the People’s Progressive Party (PPP) to office in 1992 did not diminish the diaspora’s political relevance. Instead, overseas communities continued to attract the attention of political leaders seeking support, influence, and legitimacy.

Brooklyn, Toronto, and London became important meeting places where Guyana’s political rivalries were debated and national loyalties were tested. Successive administrations cultivated relationships with overseas communities, recognising that the diaspora could contribute not only financial resources but also political influence.

Yet an important question remains: Has Region 11 used its collective influence to secure the national transformation that Guyana needs?

Beyond Boycotts: From Reaction to Responsible Action

In 2024, President Irfaan Ali’s visit to Brooklyn became a source of controversy. Calls emerged on social media for boycotts of businesses that had hosted the President during his walkabout. For those advocating such action, the boycott was a means of protesting government policies, perceived political favouritism, and injustices at home.

But is a boycott the most effective way for the diaspora to exercise its influence?

Political protest has its place in a democracy. Citizens have the right to withhold their support from businesses and institutions whose conduct they oppose. However, a protest must be judged by its objectives, its effectiveness, and its consequences. If it merely deepens divisions within the Guyanese community abroad, it may weaken the very influence that Region 11 needs to exercise.

History offers lessons worth examining. Boycotts and other forms of economic protest in colonial British Guiana confronted established commercial interests, including D’Aguiar’s Imperial House. Such episodes remind us that challenging powerful institutions requires more than anger; it requires organisation, sustained public engagement, and a clear strategy.

The diaspora must therefore decide whether it wishes to remain an audience for Guyana’s political disputes or become an organised force capable of influencing national policy.

Our strength will not be measured by the number of businesses we boycott or the volume of our online arguments. It will be measured by our ability to demand accountability, promote economic opportunity, and bring citizens together around a common national purpose.

Understanding the Roots of Division

Much of Guyana’s political tension cannot be understood without examining its colonial history.

When the territories that became British Guiana came under British rule, the colonial administration sought to sustain and expand the plantation economy. The movement of people, the organisation of labour, and the distribution of economic opportunity were shaped by the demands of colonial production.

Emancipation brought freedom to enslaved Africans, but it did not bring economic equality. Many formerly enslaved people pooled their savings, purchased land, and established villages. Through agriculture, Sunday markets, and collective effort, they created communities that offered a measure of independence from the plantation system.

Indian indentured labourers, meanwhile, were recruited to maintain the supply of labour to the sugar estates. During their contracts, many lived under restrictive conditions in plantation settlements. Their experiences differed from those of emancipated Africans, who faced the challenge of building independent lives in a colony whose economy remained dominated by sugar.

These communities endured different forms of hardship within the same colonial system. The emancipated African struggled to establish economic independence, while the indentured Indian laboured under a system designed to bind workers to plantation production.

Neither experience should be diminished to elevate the other.

The history of Guyana is not the exclusive inheritance of any one ethnic group. It is the accumulated history of Africans, Indians, Indigenous peoples, Portuguese, Chinese, and others whose labour, struggles, and aspirations helped shape the country.

Recognising these differences is essential. So, too, is recognising the shared experience of a society structured by colonial power.

The challenge before us is to understand how these historical inequalities influenced the politics of independent Guyana—and why ethnic loyalties continue to influence political choices today.

The Village, the Community, and the Meaning of Wealth

I was particularly struck by a discussion on Politics 101 about the changing character of Afro-Guyanese village life.

One participant recalled a time when families possessed little material wealth but enjoyed strong communal relationships. The village was not merely a place of residence; it was a network of shared responsibilities. Churches, schools, discipline, education, and mutual assistance helped shape the lives of successive generations.

People took pride in service to their communities. A teacher or policeman could command respect because of the contribution made to society. Success was not measured exclusively by the possessions one accumulated.

That recollection raises an important question: what happens to a community when collective responsibility gives way to individual survival?

Economic hardship can weaken communal bonds. When people must struggle simply to meet their daily needs, cooperation becomes more difficult and competition more intense. Material possessions may increasingly become symbols of status, while public service and community contribution receive less recognition.

These concerns deserve serious attention. Government policy should strengthen community institutions, expand opportunities for young people, and support small businesses that create lasting employment. Economic development must not be measured solely by national revenue or the construction of impressive infrastructure. It must also be measured by whether ordinary citizens experience greater security, dignity, and opportunity.

The same principle applies across Guyana’s ethnic communities. The preservation of communal values should not mean a return to the hardships of the past. It should mean carrying forward the best traditions of solidarity while creating the conditions for modern economic independence.

Economic Opportunity and the Question of Fairness

Concerns about the distribution of government contracts have become part of Guyana’s wider political debate. On a Politics 101 discussion concerning the economy and justice, I was struck by claims that lucrative government contracts were concentrated among a relatively small group of Indian Guyanese businesses, with comparatively few Afro-Guyanese contractors benefiting.

Such claims deserve examination through transparent procurement records, contract-award data, and independent scrutiny. Allegations of ethnic favouritism should not be treated as proven without supporting evidence. Equally, they should not be dismissed without investigation.

Public procurement is not simply an administrative matter. It determines which businesses grow, which communities gain employment, and who participates in the country’s economic transformation.

Every qualified Guyanese business should have a fair opportunity to compete for public contracts. The criteria should be transparent, the evaluation process accountable, and the results open to scrutiny.

Where unequal access exists, the government should identify the barriers and address them. Where allegations are unfounded, reliable evidence should establish that fact.

This is how a country builds trust: not through political assurances, but through institutions that citizens can examine and hold accountable.

Guyana’s oil wealth makes this responsibility even more urgent. The expanding economy should create opportunities for manufacturers, contractors, agricultural producers, skilled workers, and entrepreneurs from every community. If citizens come to believe that national wealth benefits only a connected minority, economic growth may deepen political resentment instead of strengthening national unity.

A prosperous Guyana must be one in which every citizen has a fair chance to participate in its prosperity.

From Political Allegiance to National Leadership

Guyana’s political history has been shaped by the rivalry between the PNC and the PPP. For generations, many citizens have viewed politics through the lens of ethnic identity, historical grievances, and inherited loyalties.

Alternative political movements have periodically promised to break this pattern. The emergence of the so-called Third Force and other political initiatives reflected a genuine desire among some citizens for a different direction. Yet the promise of an alternative has not always translated into a durable national movement.

New political labels alone cannot transform a country. A movement must demonstrate integrity, organisational discipline, policy competence, and the ability to unite people whose political experiences differ.

The People’s Movement emerged from my own desire for such an alternative. I believed Guyana needed a movement rooted in patriotism, economic development, social justice, and national independence of thought—not another organisation trapped by the rivalries of established political parties.

Its limited progress also illustrates the difficulty of building a national movement in a deeply polarised environment. Good intentions are insufficient. A movement must earn public confidence through practical proposals, credible leadership, and consistent engagement with ordinary citizens.

Guyana needs leadership that is patriotic rather than partisan, accountable rather than self-serving, and committed to the national interest rather than the preservation of political power.

The objective should not be to replace one ethnic constituency with another. It should be to establish a political culture in which citizens can support a government because of its policies and performance, and oppose it when it fails to meet its obligations.

That is the foundation upon which a genuine national movement can be built.

Region 11 Must Find Its Collective Voice

The Guyanese diaspora possesses resources that extend well beyond remittances. It includes experienced professionals, entrepreneurs, skilled tradespeople, academics, community organisers, and citizens familiar with institutions and economic systems outside Guyana.

These resources could contribute substantially to national development if they were organised around clear and achievable objectives.

Yet diaspora organisations often operate separately, divided by geography, political allegiance, personal rivalries, and differing priorities. Their voices may be heard individually, but their collective influence remains less than it could be.

Region 11 has an opportunity to change that.

Imagine a united diaspora organisation committed to transparent governance, fair public procurement, technical and vocational training, manufacturing, agricultural development, youth employment, and the responsible management of national resources.

Such an organisation would not need to become an extension of either the PPP or the PNC. Its purpose would be to hold every administration to consistent national standards.

It could publish policy recommendations, organise public forums, connect Guyanese businesses with overseas expertise, support educational initiatives, and establish measurable development priorities.

It could also create a space in which Afro-Guyanese, Indo-Guyanese, Indigenous Guyanese, and members of other communities work together without being required to abandon their identities or historical experiences.

This is not a call for uniformity. It is a call for cooperation.

Region 11 should be able to engage with the government of the day without surrendering its independence, and criticise the government without allowing criticism to become an excuse for ethnic hostility.

The diaspora's greatest contribution may be its ability to demonstrate that Guyanese identity can transcend the political boundaries that have divided the homeland.

Oil Wealth, Economic Independence, and the Future

Guyana stands at a critical point in its history. Oil has created extraordinary opportunities, but natural resources alone cannot guarantee lasting prosperity.

The country's experience with sugar, rice, and bauxite offers important lessons about economic concentration, state management, and the consequences of allowing established industries to decline. The rise of petroleum creates an opportunity to build a more diversified economy, but that opportunity must be managed carefully.

Oil revenue should help develop skills, strengthen education, improve public services, expand local manufacturing, modernise agriculture, and create sustainable employment. It should also support the development of businesses capable of competing beyond Guyana's borders.

The diaspora can contribute directly to this transformation by connecting local enterprises with international markets, sharing technical knowledge, mentoring young entrepreneurs, and encouraging responsible investment.

However, development cannot depend on the diaspora alone. The government must establish fair rules, strengthen institutions, and ensure that public resources are managed in the national interest.

Nor should Guyana's future depend excessively on any foreign power. International partnerships with countries such as the United States, China, and others can provide valuable opportunities, but Guyana must retain the capacity to make independent decisions based on its own long-term interests.

True economic independence is not isolation. It is the ability to engage with the world from a position of confidence, competence, and national purpose.

The Past Must Inform Us, Not Imprison Us

Guyana's history includes slavery, indentureship, colonial exploitation, political upheaval, and periods of ethnic conflict. The Wismar Massacre and other episodes of violence remain part of the country's difficult historical inheritance.

These events must be studied honestly. They should neither be forgotten nor exploited to justify fresh hostility.

The danger arises when history becomes a weapon wielded against present-day neighbours. The descendants of those who suffered under different systems should not be made responsible for every injustice committed in the past. Nor should historical grievances be dismissed simply because they are uncomfortable.

We must distinguish between remembering injustice and perpetuating division.

Our ancestors, in different circumstances and through different struggles, helped create the society we inherited. Their experiences deserve recognition, and their contributions deserve respect. Our responsibility is to build a country in which future generations are not condemned to repeat the conflicts of previous ones.

The national question is not whether one community has suffered more than another. It is whether we possess the political maturity to acknowledge our different histories and build institutions that protect the rights and opportunities of all.

Guyana cannot change its past. It can, however, change the way its past shapes the future.

A Call for a New People's Movement

I believe the time has come for Guyanese at home and abroad to reconsider the nature of their political participation.

We cannot continue to expect different results while relying on the same habits of partisan loyalty, personal ambition, and ethnic mobilisation. Neither the established parties nor the alternative movements should be beyond scrutiny.

A new People's Movement must be built on principles that are practical and measurable:

• National unity: Reject ethnic hostility while acknowledging the historical experiences of every community.
• Accountable government: Demand transparency in public spending, procurement, and the management of national resources.
• Economic opportunity: Promote local manufacturing, skills development, entrepreneurship, and employment for young Guyanese.
• Independent citizenship: Encourage citizens to judge political parties by their conduct and policies rather than inherited allegiance.
• Diaspora partnership: Bring overseas expertise, investment, and experience into a structured programme of national development.
• Historical understanding: Teach the country's complex past honestly, without turning history into an instrument of political revenge.

This movement must not become another vehicle for personal ambition. Its credibility will depend on its willingness to practise the standards it demands of others.

It must also understand that unity is not achieved by asking citizens to remain silent about injustice. Genuine unity requires fairness, accountability, and the confidence that every community has a meaningful place in the national project.

The people who must lead this effort are not necessarily the loudest voices on social media or the most influential figures in political circles. They are citizens who are prepared to work patiently, listen honestly, and place the country's long-term interests above personal or partisan advantage.

The Country Waits

For those who have witnessed Guyana's political journey over the past seven decades, the present moment brings both disappointment and possibility.

We have inherited a country shaped by centuries of labour, sacrifice, cultural exchange, and struggle. Our ancestors helped transform a colonial outpost into an independent nation. Their descendants now face a different challenge: ensuring that independence delivers a fairer society and a more secure future.

Region 11 has a responsibility in that undertaking. Its influence should not be measured solely by its ability to support or oppose a president, a political party, or a particular administration. It should be measured by what it can help Guyana achieve.

The diaspora must move beyond periodic political excitement and build a sustained programme of engagement. It must ask difficult questions, offer practical solutions, and insist that public institutions serve the entire population.

Above all, it must show that national unity is more than a slogan.

Can Guyana become a nation in which prosperity is shared more fairly, public office is exercised responsibly, and ethnic identity no longer determines the limits of political cooperation?

I believe it can. But hope without organisation is insufficient, and criticism without constructive action cannot deliver the transformation we seek.

The future of Guyana cannot be entrusted to any single party, ethnic group, or leader. It must be shaped by citizens who recognise that their differences need not prevent them from pursuing common goals.

Region 11, the opportunity is before us. Let us use our collective experience, resources, and influence to help build a Guyana that belongs to all its people.

The past is always present in our memories. But it is the future that must guide our actions.

The country waits. The responsibility is ours.