The Racial Divide for Political Power_Documentary Film Proposal

 

Jackman   1  

Name: Yaphet Jackman Professor: Louis L. Schwartz Course: Film Studies 1 Date: 21st Nov. 2014 The Racial Divide for Political Power “Dualism pervades Guyanese politics. Just as each party tries to camouflage its uni-ethnic predominance by displaying in its offices African and Indian personnel, so during elections each party projects a public image of waging a clean, issue-oriented campaign. In fact, each party allocates most of its grass-roots campaign resources to making racial appeals for votes.” (Premdas 285) Guyana’s history has been littered with political strain and turmoil for decades. Due to Guyana’s multicultural population – the majority groupings being African and Indian – direct attempts to polarize these majorities within the state has been tried time and again. As time progressed, the ethnic divide has widened and strengthened with each electoral year. Africans and Indians despite their age, education or class have each immersed themselves in the Neo Apanjaat politics wielded by our vying political leaders.

The race for political power has indirectly scourged nationhood and democracy as a notion worth exploring. Before the subtle and/or blatant plans to win and/or maintain political power, race, class or creeds were not considered as factors during the united march for independence and freedom from colonialism in 1966. The pursuit of power for

 

Jackman   2  

either ethnic group subliminally meant that the needs of that group were prioritized above and beyond reasonable doubt therefore gaining political power.

Since independence, Guyana’s political figures have played Russian roulette with the citizens of Guyana despite their ethnicity. Guyanese have always been at the mercy of these figures, doing everything within their constitutional power to manipulate and conquer the very people they swore to serve. This documentary film will highlight the use of ethnically charged political propaganda and the relegation of an entire opposition strong hold to inject, reintroduce and remind pro-government supporters of a grim past while the current opposition was in power. The film will juxtapose and compare the representative life of the two major ethnic groups within the political strong holds of both the current government – The People’s Progressive Party (PPP) – and the current joint opposition – A Partnership for National Unity (APNU) and the Alliance for Change (AFC).

Due to the recent escalation of governmental abuse of power, this film will attempt to show Guyanese how they are being used against one another to hinder national progression and development and to distract them from analyzing and criticizing our political figures. Several journals and reviews have each academically broached the topic of racial division and the methods used by politicians to achieve or maintain power. This film will frontally address these relatively taboo issues through cinema verite, newsreel footage and historic references that infer and directly portray the abuse of political power. With the advent of the first ever minority government in Guyana’s political history and

 

Jackman   3  

the coming of elections, the intention of the film is to underscore the subtle and apparent effects of media messages from state owned media houses on the society and their relation to attitudes and interactions between the two major ethnic groups of the country.

The political history of Guyana will be summarized and presented in order to contextualize the topic and make it understandable for viewers who have never interacted with Guyana nor its politics. Most references pre-dates our independence, which is integral to the current ethnic divide and still bares heavy implications on our modern current affairs. It will be apparent that the current political rhetoric is merely rehashed and rebranded ideas and plans that was once the mantra of our current opposition – which was the then governing administration. This rhetoric has now come back to haunt the very people that benefited from the constitutionalized inconsistencies designed to only benefit those who were in governmental power.

Addressing Racial Division For Political Gain

During the Cold War era, British Guiana politics was closely observed by Britain and the United States of America (U.S); Dr. Cheddi Jagan – the founding father of the PPP and a prominent well-educated Indo Guyanese - was one of the first communist leaders to emerge in the western hemisphere. His counterpart - Forbes Burnham – also chairman of the PPP and another well-educated Afro Guyanese - joined forces to fight for Guyana’s independence as a socialist equalitarian liberating force. Race, class or creed

 

Jackman   4  

did not dictate their collaboration, but rather their common interest in an independent Guyana.

In 1953, the party won the election, which was the first of its kind under adult universal suffrage. The PPP was the first party to ever win an election in a colonial parliament. Jagan became Prime Minister of British Guiana. Nine months after Jagan took office the British ousted the PPP through military force, suspended the constitution and appointed an interim body to govern. It was due to the PPP’s communist slant that the British took action to prevent Guiana from becoming a communist state. This external intervention caused a significant riff between the two freedom fighters. Jagan and Burnham split the PPP in two given their differences on how to reengage and possibly win the upcoming election. This split - though based on the political views – saw the Indo faction of the nation staying with Jagan, and were later referred to as ‘Jaganites’ while the Afro faction of the nation rallied behind Burnham, and were dubbed ‘Burnhamites’. This gave the British and the U.S an opportunity to control the country by infiltrating its politics and manipulating the apparent racial divide to their advantage.

Several academic papers, reviews and news stories have all partially addressed the growing issues that exist in our politics. Since the mid 1950’s, volumes of reports and documentation of our politics and its divisive methods have been recorded. Statistics and records highlighting these issues have grown exponentially, which infers that this is a problem that needs to be addressed. As a multicultural nation, we have suffered from external political interests of the West. These interests ensured that Guyana did not

 

Jackman   5  

become a communist state by funding ethnic violence, electoral corruption and ensuring that the seat of power was never in the grasp of someone they could not control or negotiate with. These actions have completely divided our country by race to this day.

Social cohesion is still a far-fetched phenomenon within the society. Guyanese are very sensitive when speaking about politics primarily because of the manipulative political games the government and opposition continually play to drive fear and disgust within their respective constituents. Guyana 2014 is a reflection of the tactics of the Cold War. The country’s racial divide is at its widest, corrupt politicians use state resources blatantly and unapologetically for personal and corruptive use and the country’s economy is rapidly backpedaling into instability. Our politicians have inherited divisive political methods and have exploited it to further destroy a young democratic nation that just sought to be independent and economically viable for future development. As a young Guyanese and a filmmaker, addressing and documenting the degradation of democracy in Guyana is an important step in its political history and can be used as a tool to educate and inform natives of this external phenomenon that has crippled our ability to develop as a nation and as a people. Ignoring such a discussion ultimately leaves the masses resulting in the complete obliteration of democracy and the people’s rights in Guyana.

 

Jackman   6   Style and Visualization: The Reasons Behind the Genre Documentary Film Given the political elements that inform the content of this piece, a composite of

cinéma-vérité, direct cinema, interviews and historic footage will be used to visually tell the story. This project will take the form of a documentary film that intends to utilize real life stories and testimonials to strongly create a sense of despair and urgency to invest in Guyana’s political future.

Juxtaposition and comparison will also be strong stylistic chooses used on the screen. Given the intended audience – Young Guyanese 15 – 35 - connecting with characters that can easily represent them in the story is a sure way to connect and engage with the viewer. However, given the content base of the film, the visuals will be rendered from a child’s point of view. A child like perspective on such a serious topic has never been attempted based on research. This approach may be open to much ridicule but it is still an option to be tried to address and make the necessary impact among the Guyanese society.

The use of available light will be used so as to maintain a sense of realism. The only stylized use of color or light will be employed during montage sequences which will be addressing and referencing historic events that are relevant to the topic. Based on the content and tone of the topic being addressed in the frame, visuals will vary from steady cam and tripod picture capture. Each of which will continually maintain the aforementioned perspective to tell the story. The child like perspective – low angled, unsteady, roaming camera – is a metaphor for the depiction of how divisive methods and

 

Jackman   7  

defenses in the ethnic/racial game are ‘passed down’ through behavior, interaction and integration between Afro and Indo Guyanese. Careful attention will be paid to the mise en scene of each frame to ensure a clear distinct be drawn between typical Afro and Indo Guyanese residences and villages, which will inform the way each subject interacts with the camera. This approach will without a doubt infer and directly portray ethnic tension and objectively open the viewers mind to the possibility of a personal ‘call to action’

The investigative and revealing manner in which archival footage has already been captured aids the decision of making this project a documentary film. The genre allows for a subjective view of the content that has been referenced therefore suggesting the agenda for viewers to inevitably think about. It must also be noted that documentary films tend to have a more informative element and will always be treated as information viewed from a new perspective. A child’s perspective of politics is obviously absurd given their inability to comprehend the complexities and nuisances of politics. However, the concept behind treating the information as a child – curiously, without prejudice or tainted by history – will auger well as a strong message and as visual content that addresses a very serious matter in the political history of Guyana.

 

Jackman   8   Bibliography

France, Hollis. "CONTINUITY OR CHANGE?: STRUCTURAL ADJUSTMENT DECISION-MAKING IN GUYANA (1988–1997) THE HOYTE AND JAGAN YEARS." Social and Economic Studies 54.1 (2005): 83-128. JSTOR. Web. 3 Nov. 2014.   Gibson, Kean. "The Dualism of Good and Evil and East Indian Insecurity in Guyana." Journal of Black Studies 36.3 (2006): 362-81. JSTOR. Web. 19 Nov. 2014.   Griffith, Ivelaw L. "The Military and the Politics of Change in Guyana." Journal of Interamerican Studies and World Affairs 33.2 (1991): 141-73. JSTOR. Web. 20 Nov. 2014.   Mars, Perry. "ETHNIC CONFLICT AND POLITICAL CONTROL: THE GUYANA CASE." Social and Economic Studies 39.3 (1990): 65-94. JSTOR. Web. 20 Oct. 2014.   Matthews, Lionel. "ETHNIC TOLERANCE IN URBAN GUYANA: A CONCEPTUAL AND EMPIRICAL ANALYSIS." International Review of Modern Sociology 29.1 (1999): 55-75. JSTOR. Web. 05 Oct. 2014.   Premdas, Ralph R. "Competitive Party Organizations and Political Integration in a Racially Fragmented State: The Case of Guyana." Caribbean Studies 12.4 (1973): 5-35. JSTOR. Web. 5 Oct. 2014.   Premdas, Ralph R. "Elections and Political Campaigns in a Racially Bifurcated State: The Case of Guyana." Journal of Interamerican Studies and World Affairs 14.3 (1972): 271-96. JSTOR. Web. 5 Oct. 2014.