LAST week’s column sought to make sense of the contending arguments over the President’s decision to make a presidential order to recover the Red House from the PPP. As one who is appalled by the extent to which the PPP used its authority to transfer state assets to private use, I viewed and still view the president’s move in that light. As a student of ethnicity and ethnic politics, I recognised that despite the correctness of the president’s order, there were ethnic sensitivities involved; that given Dr. Jagan’s standing in that community, Indian-Guyanese were bound to respond to such a move in a hostile manner.

Finally, considering the above, I would not have advised the government to move in that direction.
As I wrote the column, I was certain that supporters of the PPP and Indian- Guyanese partisans were only going to see the first point and completely ignore the latter two. I also, was confident that government supporters would only see the last point and completely ignore the first two. This is exactly what happened. It is as if political elites are incapable of dealing with complex arguments; we are always looking to see where the attack is coming from. And this instinct flourishes amidst the most complex politics you will find anywhere in the world.

Recently, I was sitting with a few friends at a public place in Buxton, when a man came up to us and said words to the effect that he wanted to thank me for helping to keep the government in the right direction. Then he quickly followed up with an even stronger warning to me that he does not want Jagdeo and the PPP to return to power. He rounded off his remarks with an even stronger critique of African-Guyanese, who he condemned for messing up power when it’s given to them.

When the brother left, I turned to my friends and said that, that is the complexity I try to make sense of every day. Here is someone who starts off by lifting me up for what he sees as a necessary role, but immediately cautions me about the possible danger and then pivots back to what he sees as the larger sociological problem the government confronts. I remarked that had a government minister been present, he or she would have invariably missed or ignored the man’s first and last points and would have latched on to the second one.
At that point, I arrived at a better understanding of my own situation. Over the last couple of months, I have been approached by many persons close to the government leaders with messages of how disappointed and angry the latter are with what they see as my “constant attacks” on the government. I have been accused, sometimes publicly, as working for the PPP and wanting to bring them back to office.

I, of course, dismissed these charges as nothing more than the usual government response to any criticism from any quarter. After all, I am a government supporter whose every comment on government is aimed at ensuring that it does better than the previous discredited ones. Like the man I referenced above, I do not want the PPP to come back to power on its own. My fear is grounded in the viciousness that party unleashed on Guyana while in office between 1992 and 2015.
I have tried to balance my general support, though, with caution against going down the discredited road. I point out mistakes with the aim of helping to get them corrected. But alas, I have concluded that such nuanced politics is foreign to the politicians’ minds. Sadly, we have not learned as a political culture to deal with dissent, especially when it comes from “within.” When it comes to power one is either for or against—there is no grey area.

The irony is that while I am seen as an enemy by the gods who demand blind loyalty, the gods on the other side see me as a dangerous racist who looks out only for African-Guyanese interests and those of the government. I have been called government apologist, propagandist, loyalist, partisan and all the other bad words associated with blind loyalty. This was in full force this past week. One letter writer went as far as to suggest that I do not want to see Jagan’s papers housed in free space and that I am in collusion with the PNC to disrespect him. My friend, Ravi Dev, was much more thoughtful in his response to me. But I think he also gave the impression that I am unmindful of Indian-Guyanese sensitivities.

Ravi raises the important point of mobilising “within,” but outside of the orbit of the anointed party and how that is seen as betraying the group’s cause. I am conscious of that dilemma, but I am not prepared to go against my conscience just to avoid being called a traitor. I am an African-Guyanese who feels that part of my energies must be expended on the security of that group, but that does not lead me in the direction of denying other groups their rightful places and just reward in Guyana.

Africanists and other nationalists must draw the line somewhere. I draw the line when it comes to fairness and justice, even when it offends my political friends. That was my attitude to the PNC government of the past, to the immediate past PPP government and to the current government. Although theoretically the present government is less harmful to the security of African- Guyanese, my attitude to them does not begin with ethno-racial considerations. I have seen the pitfall of that approach.
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