I WROTE this column as I listened to the remarks of the speakers at the opening ceremony of the Museum of African American History and Culture. This landmark representation of the black experience in America was opened in a week when two human beings were gunned down in the public space simply because they were black.The dehumanization of blackness is still a fact of life; both the museum and the lynchings in Tulsa and Charlotte are vivid reminders of this fact. Let nobody tell you that anti-black racism is not normal; it is normal wherever the sons and daughters of Chattel Slavery reside, including in our own country, Guyana.

I have been thinking about the mounting criticisms of the Government — both in the public sphere and away from the glare of the media. The political opposition does what political opposition in the Caribbean sees as its principal job, and the society expects of it — opposes the Government as an end in itself. So it is another type of critique of Government that I am thinking about — the critique by the masses of people, particularly those who voted for and support the Government.

It is by now no secret that many supporters of the Government are unhappy with its stewardship of the country these last sixteen months. That unhappiness may be surprising to some, but it is real. It has to be real, because we live in a country and a region where government represents power. So, in the minds of citizens, their quest for the freedom promised at Emancipation in 1838 and Independence in 1966 is largely imagined against the backdrop of who governs.

When, in 1992, we had our first change of government since independence, the hope in some quarters was that after the grave mistakes of the first decades of independence, Government would cleanse itself and become what it was meant to be — a medium of empowerment and freedom for all Guyanese, particularly the sufferers. Alas, that 1992 Government turned out to be a colossal failure; it took government further away from the people and transformed it into a medium of enrichment for a few comrades and their friends, a trafficker of fear and force, and a source of ethnic domination.

It is against this ugly background that this Government came to power last year. It is by no means a truly representative government, but its rise to power represents a rebuke of the architects of the two governments it succeeded. All new governments rise to power with burdens of expectations, but this one in Guyana and similar ones in the wider Caribbean come with particular burdens. After 50 years of Independence, the Caribbean invariably asks itself some very serious questions, the most serious one being, “Are we, as a people, capable of governing ourselves in a state of freedom?”

Here, in Guyana, we have not governed ourselves in a state of freedom during our first 50 years of Independence. It is not that government has not attempted positive policies and our leaders did not demonstrate vision during this period, but they did so within a context of authoritarianism. And our experience has shown that vision and uplifting policies are not sustainable in conditions where freedom is absent.

So we come back to the current Government and its critics. The criticism by its supporters must be seen within the context of what they perceive to be the role of government in contemporary society. Clearly, after living under a government which for 23 years enriched itself from the public purse, they could not want their government to give itself a giant salary increase in its first months in office. Clearly, after open plunder of public resources, they do not want to hear that Government has the evidence but it can’t prosecute the plunderers.
Clearly, they don’t want to see the fat cats who became the mega-rich under the previous government being given prime contracts, prestigious jobs, and high status in a government that campaigned against the giveaway of the country to the powerful few. Clearly, they do not want to hear a government they elected to look out for them telling them that Government cannot create employment for them.

While that assertion makes neo-liberal economic sense, it is inconsistent with the mass perception of the meaning of government, which is grounded in a Caribbean tradition of government as a source of economic security for the poor.

Clearly, they don’t want to hear their government tell them that they can’t make a living in the public space because they are nasty. Clearly, they don’t want to be chased up and down the streets of Georgetown by a king who is out of control. Clearly, they don’t want to be told that their Government cannot pay them more than a 10% pittance; and they don’t want to see their union being bullied to take the pittance and murmur not. Clearly, they don’t want to be lectured on IMF-neoliberal economics by their leaders; that kind of economics has, from slavery to the present, underdeveloped our people. Plantation economic praxis cannot correct the wrongs of the plantation and empower the victims of ‘plantationhood’.

I have said before that this Government has done some good things since coming to office, but it is unable to articulate its successes for three major reasons. First, its mistakes have tended to mask its successes; the mistakes are too blatant and numerous. Second, the Government has failed to articulate an overriding vision of change and transformation. This means that its policies and actions appear to be random and eclectic. Third, it has not done anything for the people at the social bottom that is big and has direct effect on their day to day lives.

The current wage negotiations offered them a golden opportunity to do that, but they blew it. I guarantee that if the Government gave workers across the board a wage increase that makes a difference in their lives, they would forgive the mistakes that have been made. But the refusal to budge from the 10% only serves to illuminate the other transgressions. And the situation is compounded by politically insensitive declarations from ministers, such as that’s all they can afford and that Guyanese workers earn more than workers in most countries.

From a purely subjective standpoint, I would not want to see the return of the PPP to power in one-party government. I think such a government would be bad for Guyana, since the PPP has been unrepentant largely because its personnel are convinced they did nothing wrong. But that does not lead me to be uncritical of this government, sections of which are extremely hostile to criticisms.

In the end, I have an obligation to balance support for the Government with loyalty to, and defence of, the people; particularly the poor and the powerless. My critiques are partly meant to get the Government to heed the cries of its supporters to change course. A glance across the Caribbean landscape would show that people have low tolerance for governments; the one-term syndrome is commonplace.

There may be a thinking in Government circles that dislike of the PPP and ethnic loyalty would work in its favour at the next election. I caution against that thinking; African Guyanese have traditionally demonstrated a dual political culture of “independent-loyalty” that allows them to vote for their ethnic party and simultaneously search for and empower alternatives to their ethnic status quo. Both the WPA and the Trotman-led AFC benefited from this culture.

The APNU+AFC government was not elected for its officials to be CEOs and managers; it was elected to lead a renewal of government and politics. It was not elected to advance the 400-year economic globalization thesis that has brought social death to Guyana and the Caribbean. It is time the Government realizes that because of its “government as usual” approach, it does not enjoy the full confidence of its supporters and the society at large. Its survival depends on its ability to address this growing problem. Failure to do so in short order could be disastrous. I, for one, would hold the Coalition responsible if it delivers Guyana into the hands of the PPP in 2020.

More of Dr. Hinds ‘writings and commentaries can be found on his YouTube Channel Hinds’ Sight: Dr. David Hinds’ Guyana-Caribbean Politics and on his website www.guyanacaribbeanpolitics.com. Send comments to dhinds6106@aol.com