-but I also want poor people to have bread, justice and equal opportunity
Hinds’ Sight with Dr. David Hinds

ONE year ago, there was a change of government in Guyana for the first time in 23 years. Many Guyanese were relieved, not just because they had voted for a government of their choice, but because the outgoing Government had violated almost every tenet of democratic norm.

In other words, the electoral defeat of the PPP took on revolutionary significance. To understand the significance of May 2015, one has to take an honest, dispassionate and nationalist view of our modern political history.

THE SIGNIFICANCE OF MAY 2015
Up till 2015, all of Guyana’s Independence experience had been characterized by undemocratic governance. Both of our major parties, grounded in the support of our two major ethnic enclaves, took turns in administering the Government, and both invariably went down the slippery slope of ‘commandist’ government. In 1992, after long resistance by the ethnic masses, separately and together, and on the strength of the mainly Indian Guyanese vote, the country relieved itself of PNC authoritarianism.

Crucial to that resistance was the role of sections of the African Guyanese masses, which rebelled against the excesses of the Government they voted for. The WPA was critical to giving voice to that rebellion. In the end, it was the WPA’s accommodation with the PPP that allowed the PPP to garner the parliamentary majority it needed in 1992. That piece of political history is often buried by the PPP and by those who have slight understanding of political complexities in Guyana.

The new rulers, instead of moving the country away from authoritarian rule, deliberately decided to massively expand the authoritarian state they inherited. The burden of such a state eventually crushed all in its way, including its own ethnic electoral base. It was no accident that a small but significant section of the latter broke ranks in 2011 and 2015.

The AFC was critical to giving leadership to that electoral revolt, which joined with African Guyanese and a section of the Amerindian masses to oust the PPP and create the new Coalition Government.

There are many elements that contributed to making that moment a revolutionary one; but the most important one is the fact that, for the first time since 1953, significant sections of the three ethnic masses voted for the same political entity. That is most significant. The people rejected the old, well-meaning but futile model of getting them to vote for one party, and instead embraced the plural model of voting for several parties under one banner. They had lifted Guyana’s politics to another level.

Here is why: Parts of the authoritarian excesses of both the PPP and PNC governments were grounded in ethnic insecurity and its attendant abuse of the secured ethnic vote. The Coalition Government represents in some ways a challenge to the ethnic-garrison politics that has been at the core of authoritarian rule in Guyana. So, if this new plural model is properly managed, one of the pillars of authoritarian governance should be somewhat diminished.

It is for that reason that the Government has to be vigorously monitored. Politicians do not always understand the importance of history, or they sometimes deliberately ignore its significance. Governance is often reduced to raw politics. It is this combination that led to the PPP transforming the 1992 democratic opening into the worst anti-democratic experience this country has experienced since the end of colonial rule.

AFTER ONE YEAR
After one year in office, the Coalition Government has done exceedingly well, as far as basic governance is concerned. It has begun to tackle some of the basic things that governments should confront: provision of services to communities, defending the country’s sovereignty, and facilitating political stability without resort to the denial of civil liberties and the erosion of civil rights. The Government should be commended for that; coming to office in the wake of a rampant regime and holding things together is a massive achievement by any standard.

But I think that more attention has to be paid to the big picture — Vision. I am not satisfied that the Government has put before the nation a larger vision of where it wants to take Guyana. Ever so often, President Granger has given hints without really presenting an overarching outlook. I am, for example, very impressed with his recent assessment of the Government’s first year in office. It is clear that he understands the challenges; but I think we have to move to another level, one which articulates how we are going to preserve what we won in May 2015 and use it to advance a comprehensive political, economic and cultural agenda that speaks to overcoming the myriad challenges of a post-colonial plural society which has stumbled badly in its first 50 years of independence.

THE VENDORS
Early last week, the AFC referred to me as a “self-proclaimed” critic who apparently is out to undermine the Government. Later in the week, former President Ramotar described me as a black nationalist who is interested only in having a black government in office — the very Government that the AFC thinks I want to undermine — and that I am a chief propagandist for this Government.

I am dizzy. You see, just the other day, when I was growing up in Buxton as a little, poor, bare-foot boy, if anybody had told me that one day presidents and rulers of Guyana would pay attention to what I have to say, I would have laughed at them.

Within the bowels of the negativity of those two commentaries against me lie something liberating about poor Guyanese and poor people everywhere — out of their daily agonies they produce the most searing critiques of power. I am proud to be a product of that tradition, and shall remain loyal to it always. It makes me understand why we have to beautify our capital city but simultaneously hear the agonies of the vendors, and see their protest not as anti-progress but as a cry for respect and dignity.

There surely must be a way to reason with the vendors, rather than treat them like outcasts in their own country. There is something morally and humanly wrong with a scenario in which poor people’s stalls are bulldozed while the sins of the rich, including rich crooks, are left untouched. We are beautifying Georgetown by displacing poor people and disrupting their lives, but the ugliness of stolen state assets is left intact. We can reason with the rich and powerful, but can’t reason with poor people.
It is that kind of official behaviour that needs to be checked.

I join with all Government supporters in wanting the Government to succeed; for if they do, we all succeed. But I want to be an example, going forward, that fashions a culture of support that is not blind and mindless, but one that is grounded in the defence of the poor and the powerless against the might of official and non-official power.

I want Mr. Granger to be an effective and good President, but I also want poor people to have bread and justice, and equal opportunity to lift themselves out of the cycle of poverty and want. So I stand on the side of the vendors.

Tony Cozier
For us in the Caribbean, cricket is a conversation that reaches beyond the boundary. For six decades, Tony Cozier interpreted for us the complexities of what happened within the boundaries, and linked them to our Caribbean spirit to produce a beautiful tapestry. In the tradition of CLR James, Cozier made cricket more than “bat and ball.” His voice, insights and critiques were very much central to our cricket in its highs and lows. He gave voice to our worth, our beauty, our culture and our soul; but Tony Cozier’s voice would be of better value in the land of the living. All the same, walk good Tony, as I borrow Martin Carter’s words: “I salute you/ And I say/Death will not find us thinking that we die.”

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