MY friend, Freddie Kissoon, and I have, over the last few years, had many heated discussions about the WPA—its fate, its role, its stances on issues and the political conduct of some of its leaders. Freddie was once a WPA member who became disillusioned with the party and left. He is not singular in that regard—some leading members of the party left for varying reasons. Most of them have, however, remained part of what I normally refer to as the “WPA family.” Freddie is not part of that family—at least not actively.
Freddie has a strange attitude to the WPA, perhaps because of his boundless independence. On the one hand, he credits the WPA with lifting the politics of Guyana to a positively new level, but on the other hand, he sees the current party as irrelevant. In a real sense, I think he believes the WPA’s time has come and gone—a view on which we disagree. His latest criticism of the WPA in one of his columns two weeks ago reflected this mindset, but in the process he has brought to the fore a very important political dilemma in contemporary Guyanese politics.
Some months ago, in response to a question from a reporter, I made some criticisms of the AFC which in many respects were similar to the ones Freddie recently made of the WPA. Freddie also, made similar criticisms of the AFC. My remarks led to a sharp exchange with the AFC. I later learned that while some AFC members agreed with my evaluation of their party, they felt that I should make the same criticisms of my own party. I have to admit that when I made the criticisms of the AFC, I did not realise that I was in fact touching something that was very central to contemporary Guyanese politics.
I have remained a member of the WPA; it’s the only party I have ever belonged to. I continue as a member even though I have become increasingly frustrated with political parties. I continue largely because I see the WPA as more than just a political party. I see it as representative of a movement, an idea and as a medium for a politics of the conscience—a politics that rises above political calculations and correctness.
I voted for the WPA to join the APNU in a partnership with its old nemesis, the PNC. It was not an easy decision for the WPA family; it took almost five years to convince most of us. There were many reasons for the hesitancy –we were asking many WPA people to join a partnership with a party which had once hurt us personally and politically. But above all, the sticking point was Walter Rodney, our leader and inspiration if ever there was one. I personally grappled with that. The PPP’s taunts that we were going to bed with Rodney’s killers didn’t bother me—by then I had lost all political respect for the PPP as an organisation.
I worried about balancing justice for Walter and commitment to the Partnership—would it be possible? I worried about how the WPA’s tradition of radical critique would gel with a partner which has traditionally been hostile to dissent. In the end, we went for the Partnership, because we reasoned that the needs of the country far outweighed our subjective considerations. It was a significant decision that was pregnant with the weight of history—we were merging two contending strands of the Caribbean political praxis with full knowledge that their rivalry would continue even as they partner with each other.
At the personal level, I was sometimes part of the discussions and negotiations that led to the formation of the APNU; they were simultaneously cordial and pregnant with mutual suspicions. It was clear that both sides were suspicious of each other—we in the WPA were always conscious of the PNC’s penchant for domination, while we felt the PNC was always wary of our unpredictability born of a political culture that was premised on the primacy of principle.
While in the WPA we had by 2011 reached almost unanimous agreement about the necessity of the APNU, most of the PNC’s leadership were not similarly convinced. That “go it alone” tendency is still in my estimation a majority one in the PNC—it was no accident that at the recent PNC Congress Granger, Williams and Clarke spent most of their time selling the Coalition to their membership. Many in the PNC felt that the WPA brought nothing to the table so the partnership was useless—there is still some of that disrespect for the WPA in some high quarters in the PNC, which perhaps explains the party’s marginalisation in the APNU and the Coalition.
Such a politically uneducated view arises from a mathematical view of politics, whereby political influence and strength are measured solely by electoral votes. Thankfully, at least one major PNC leader thought and knew otherwise. So in the end the APNU was born and the rest is recent history. The APNU returned the 10% vote that the PNC lost to the AFC in 2006. Further, without the APNU, there would have been no APNU+AFC Coalition. I make bold to conclude that the AFC in 2015 would have never touched the PNC if the latter were not part of something larger than itself.
But the positives of the birth of the APNU and the APNU+AFC have masked some difficulties for the individual parties, particularly since they won office in 2015. One of the difficulties is how to balance being in government and maintaining their independence. This is what Freddie has raised in relation to the AFC and the WPA; and I have zeroed in on in relation to the AFC. My WPA colleague Tacuma Ogunseye has recently raised it in relation to the WPA and the PNC.
None of the parties in the Coalition has worked out how to do that balancing act. Some may even question whether it is possible to balance those two things. It should be noted that the WPA is not the only party in the Coalition that does not speak out on government action; the PNC and the AFC are also silent. This suggests that the problem is much bigger than we think. It can also be argued that the PNC does not have to do the balancing act, since they are the ones controlling the government. I differ with that view. Some PNC members feel that the party is marginalised in the government; that it is the ex-soldiers’ faction that is really in charge.
Contrary to the views in some quarters, the WPA has not lost its independence nor its conviction. As a collective we disagree strongly with some of the government’s actions. Although my critiques are done in my own name and not the party’s, most of the time my views are reflective of a majority within the WPA family.
When the government changed the WPA’s leadership decided to deliberately take a cautious approach towards public criticism of the government. We decided to remain quiet so as not to appear to be undermining the government. There are four major considerations that inform the WPA’s cautiousness when it comes to publicly critiquing the government.
First, we have taken into consideration that partnership government in Guyana is a new phenomenon that requires each partner to resist the temptation to impose its views on the partnership. Second, we are committed to making the government work and not to undermining it; hence our primary concern is not to poison relations with our partners. Third, given the WPA’s history of radical critique of government and politics, we are sensitive to the criticisms in some quarters that we cannot be trusted to hold things together. Fourth, we feel strongly that as a party we should avoid doing anything to give comfort to the PPP and aid its stated objective of undermining and derailing the government.
In a sense, the WPA muted its critical voice in the public sphere in the interest of the collective. In my view, we took that cautiousness too far and have become partly imprisoned by it. It was the party’s hope that we would air our concerns internally, but opportunities to do so have been scarce. The organs of the APNU meet infrequently and so far as we know, the partners of the Coalition do not meet outside of Cabinet. The WPA has one voice and one vote in Cabinet. In other words, our party has very little or no voice in policy-making. For example, as a party we were not consulted on the recent decision on the wage offer to public servants. I am arguing we got precious little for erring on the side of caution.
There is currently a raging debate inside the WPA family on the party’s silence on government action. There is a majority view that the party is hurting itself by not asserting its independence both inside and outside of government. Many of our comrades feel very strongly that as a party we have not done a good job at balancing our independence by upholding our traditional values with our commitment to making the Coalition work. Our survival as a credible political influence is premised on striking that balance—the sooner the better. I share that view.

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