Dear Editor,

DR. David Hinds has penned an article in another newspaper captioned, “Dropping the ball: Can the coalition recapture its 2015 voting blocks,” (KN, December 16)? The piece was a puzzling, misleading, alarmist, doom-laden, inaccurate, and often an offensive misrepresentation of Guyana’s political landscape. Considering Dr. Hinds’ acknowledged intellectual acumen, one is forced to wonder whether or not he actually, honestly believes what he wrote. Whatever may be Dr. Hinds’ motivation for writing the erroneous commentary, his assertions must be refuted by highlighting the facts that Dr. Hinds appears to currently ignore, in favour of a fantastic political universe of his own creation.
Dr. Hinds’ primary contention is that the APNU+AFC coalition government has “dropped the ball” as relates to retaining its supporters. He bases that opinion almost exclusively on the results of the last local government election (LGE), which, as we all know by now, was poorly attended generally, and disappointingly lacking in support for APNU+AFC candidates.

Dr. Hinds wrote, “This past week I have been asked by a few people for my view on the prospects of the coalition at the next [general] election. They were all supporters who voted for the coalition of parties, but the results of the recently concluded LGE have caused them to ask some serious questions about the ability of the coalition to rally a majority of the electorate again.”

He said, “There is anxiety about the leader’s health and the implications for intra-coalition stability.” He continued, “[Supporters] all agreed that the LGE results have sent a chilling message that has implications for who wins in 2020.”

And, then he ventured into his favourite area: race politics. He wrote that “Amerindians” who voted for the coalition need to be convinced to stay, because, “any political entity perceived as African Guyanese (one assumes he means the APNU) would always have the hardest time holding the political loyalty of that section of the electorate.”

Dr. Hinds’ lengthy and often confusing article mentioned many topics amid an ocean of mixed metaphors, perplexing arguments and bewildering conclusions. He wrote of the government’s incapacity to craft messages, the disappointment of Guyanese with the coalition, President Granger’s rock-star status and inter-coalition finger-pointing, among the variety of subjects covered. Arguably, it is not an easy article to read or understand since logic was apparently overlooked by Dr. Hinds when he crafted this particular piece.
However, it may be possible to identify a few of the most noticeable assertions and address those.

While one may overlook the unbelievable statement that all of the people who asked for Dr. Hinds’ opinion had voted for the coalition, not to mention the unanimity of their supposed alarm, it must be noted that LGEs and general elections are very different entities and are perceived by Guyanese as such.

For two decades the PPP denied Guyanese the right to choose their local representatives. And many Guyanese survived those years. Is it surprising, then, that many citizens view local government as less than important? Further, the PPP, by concentration power at the centre, have instilled a culture and mindset of centralised decision-making in people. That reality is obvious when one considers the fact that people still make appointments to see ministers in order to complain about potholes, when in fact, they should be consulting their elected local councillors. Evidently, any comparison of voter mobilisation between a LGE and a general election has no validity. In fact, everyone knew that the turnout would be less than impressive. So, Dr. Hinds is either being disingenuous, or he misunderstands basic facts.

He mentioned anxiety about President Granger’s health. While all Guyanese wish the President a speedy recovery, is it really appropriate for someone of Dr. Hinds’ stature to, apparently, attempt to frighten Guyanese by directly linking the president’s health to coalition-stability, when no such link exists?

While one may take issue with many of the points, Dr. Hinds’ statement about “Amerindians” is frankly offensive. Dr. Hinds has generalised and stereotyped the behavioural tendencies of an entire ethnic group – nine ethnic groups in fact – by saying that, “any political entity perceived as African Guyanese would always have the hardest time holding the political loyalty of [Indigenous Guyanese].” Dr. Hinds owes Indigenous Guyanese an immediate and unequivocal apology.

While Dr. Hinds may be right in pointing out many Guyanese were sending a message of dissatisfaction to the government, he should have been fair and balanced by mentioning that the damage done to Guyana by the PPP cannot be fixed quickly or easily; administrative systems have to be changed, ministries have to be streamlined, corrupt officials have to be removed, and, most importantly, our mindset has to transform to accept the vision of a decentralised system of democratic governance. Therefore, an appeal for patience would have been in order.

While Dr. Hinds continues to enjoy the respect of Guyanese, one expects that he would be responsible in his pronouncements, because respect is difficult to earn, but may be easily lost.

Regards,
Mark Da Costa