Submitted: Ethnically oriented political parties benefit from the poverty of their supporters!

Since 1946, political parties have been established in the Surinamese colony that in fact only represented their ethnic support base vis-à-vis the coloniser. The fact that these political parties still exist now, after 50 years of independence with a democratic system, is actually difficult to understand. A properly functioning social-democratic system does the greatest justice to the moral equality of every individual and the great diversity of people in society.

If every individual is treated equally, there are no differences in ethnicity, but everyone is a resident of Suriname. Every vote must therefore in principle carry equal weight in a democracy, regardless of differences in social status, cultural background, economic merit, political views or cognitive abilities. This equality goes hand in hand with the principle that every individual must have the freedom to make choices about his or her own life. Even if one person has more responsibilities than another, equality remains a fact before the law. Every citizen must also be protected by the rule of law through the principle of equality. Those who want to defend democracy must keep that ideal in mind. One of the most important principled objections to ethnic politics is therefore that it undermines national cohesion. It distracts people from what they have in common – namely the nation-state – and places the emphasis on what makes them different from one another. Yet a strong national identity is important for the quality of all government policy. Political division arises in politics, among other things, because people only want to favour their own (wealthy) ethnic support base, and as a result various policy developments that are important for increasing prosperity for the entire population stagnate. In short, national identity should no longer be sought in ethnicity, but in the values of democracy and the rule of law.

Across the world, one sees the phenomenon that ethnic politics, now referred to as identity politics, has an unpleasant, aggressive style of communication, which reinforces political populism. We also see this phenomenon in Suriname. An accusatory approach towards one shared political enemy, in which the substance of a political debate no longer matters. There is often not a shred of evidence for those accusations, but that does not seem to concern the identity politician. Conversely, these political groups often cannot tolerate criticism, because they believe they are the “best”. Identity politics therefore has a narcissistic approach. They cherish only a pathological love for themselves. Identity politics can therefore be called racist, because deep down they believe that other population groups are inferior to their group. One’s own identity is elevated at the expense of the other. This deliberately creates an irreconcilable contradiction between groups of people based on external characteristics such as skin colour or what was formerly called ‘race’. Moreover, this is difficult to reconcile with the ideal of tolerance. Tolerance means that you accept that other people have different views, make different choices and wish to express different matters in the public debate.

After 50 years of independence, it is important that we as a people punish those ethnic contradictions in politics at the elections, because reality shows that voting along ethnic lines benefits only a small group at the top of that ethnic party. 
1) It undermines the individual vote of their own political supporters. The word that requires further explanation here is individual. The system of the democratic rule of law is based on the notion of individual rights and not group rights. Identity politicians – and here lies a major problem – break with that notion of individual rights. In doing so, they break with an important moral framework for the democratic rule of law, and that is not without consequences. Engaging in ethnic politics therefore means dealing selectively with democracy and the rule of law. Standing up for the interests of minority groups should not be confused with this, because minorities must be protected in order to preserve that individual equality in society.
2) Politically ethnic-oriented parties benefit from the poverty of their support base, because they often feel inferior in our society. In poverty, people who resemble one another gravitate towards each other, because they must be able to rely on one another and often trust their equals more.  This is how they have drawn voters to them for decades. Those voters then hope that their political party will better represent their ethnic group, but we see that this has no effect for the vast majority of their support base. Thus, unknowingly, you vote for your own poverty.
3) If identity politics is cast in the political guise of populism, which tends towards fascism, then not only will recolonisation become a reality, but democracy and the rule of law will also be put at risk by social distrust. Something ethnic political parties benefit from, because in distrust you are more inclined towards your own equals.
4) When the ethnic group once again feels victimised, every effort may be made to obtain its rights in the light of certain human ideals, but when it concerns human rights violations on a much larger scale, people often turn a blind eye.

Defending the principle that all Surinamese are equal in a democratic rule of law is essential for positive change for the people of Suriname, because a democratic rule of law is not structured around “the wealthy”, “ethnic groups” or “family and friends” who must be favoured.

Marie-Louise Vissers.

Sources:

• Francis Fukuyama – Identity: Dignity, Resentment and the Politics of Resentment (2018). Core: Fukuyama argues that the focus on specific group identities undermines national identity and democratic stability. He advocates a return to universal human dignity.
• Lilla, M. (2017). The Once and Future Liberal: After Identity Politics. Core: Lilla argues that the obsession with identity has paralysed progressive politics. It has shifted the focus from broad, solidaristic citizenship to a moral struggle between subcultures.
• Helen Pluckrose & James Lindsay, Cynical Theories (2020). Core: This book criticises how academic theories have seeped into society, leading to a dogmatic focus on race, gender and power.
• Stokes 2013. Core: According to political science theories, ethnic parties in developing countries sometimes benefit from their support base remaining economically dependent, because votes in exchange for favours (patronage) then work more effectively.

Marie Louise Visser