–‘to reach the West Indies’ in chains

Dear Editor,

FREDDIE Kissoon has included me in a list of persons he deems to have committed the cardinal sin of refusing to characterise the current impasse as an open and close case of rigged elections. He suggests that Guyana will not see us the same way again. Freddie is entitled to his opinions. I do not always share them. But he is not entitled to create his context and fit other people neatly into them.

He, Freddie, and others have relied on PPP’s evidence and those of some observer missions to arrive at their conclusions of massively rigged elections. I have listened to the PPP’s evidence and arrived at a conclusion that the elections are disputed. Freddie has looked at what has transpired since March 2 and concluded that the impasse is about electoral integrity—he has narrowed it down to Mingo’s tabulation and PNC’s rigging. I have looked at what has happened since March 2 and concluded that there is a convergence of factors and forces, including the one cited by Freddie, which are deeply rooted in Guyana’s historical evolution at work. Freddie focuses on the narrow manifestation of the problem. I focus on the broader and deeper manifestations.

Freddie takes me to task for accusing the Western countries of taking a side in what I see as a dispute between two parties representing the interests of two competing ethnic groups. He conveniently omits my conclusion that the Western countries have always taken sides in Guyana. What is different this time around is their pointedly overt expression of their preference. Of course, I do not buy the narrative of defence of electoral integrity; that is a mask for defence of their larger economic and political interests. It always was and always will be. That is the nature of North-South International Relations. Again, Freddie’s difference with me has to do with context. He fits the actions of the Western representatives into his minimalist characterisation of the impasse. I see their actions in the context of the maximalist reading of the impasse.

Regarding what he sees as my omission of some CARICOM leaders’ pronouncements on the situation, we again come at it from different places. Freddie lumps all the pronouncements on the impasse together—those from the Western leaders, CARICOM leaders, the PPP, and other local forces. I see it differently. Their rhetoric may be the same or similar, but their motivations and interests diverge. CARICOM leaders do not come to their conclusions of what is happening in Guyana from a history of coloniality and hegemony. I am sorry Freddie, I thought that was so basic that it was not even worth mentioning. It is true that CARICOM’s intervention in Guyana from the Hoyte Mustique meeting, through the Cumminigsburg and St Lucia accords to the present is worth studying to unearth its own dynamics. But to fold together their attitudes with those of the Western countries is a bit of a stretch.

Let me close with three things. It is public knowledge that Freddie is my close friend. Our friendship is based partly on a mutual respect for our common agreements and disagreements on political issues. Unlike some of his other friends, I have refrained from getting into public brawls with him, and I do not intend to start now. But I am saddened that, given his keen sense of African-Guyanese history and cultural reflexes, that he would attempt to trivialise the Black reaction to the perception that the descendants of their former enslavers and colonisers are currently talking down to them.

That should not be dismissed lightly. It is part of our problem in Guyana: We do not put ourselves enough in the place of the opposite ethnicity to get a sense of their fears and their feelings.
Second, some activists can afford to reduce politics and society to abstractions, slogans and so-called universalist notions of fairness and justice born in the belly of unfairness, injustice, and superiority. Some of us, hardened by a history of inhumanity and the struggle to reclaim humanity, cannot help being concrete and always imagining what tomorrow would be like. We have a history of crossing rivers and oceans “to reach in the West Indies” in chains, as the Mighty Sparrow reminds. We know chains when we see, hear feel, and smell them. As Bob Marley chanted, “No chains around my feet/ but I am not free.” Do not lecture to us about race and freedom!

Third, I find Freddie’s repeated attacks on Eusi Kwayana most distasteful; it is rooted in his disproportionate personal attacks on the WPA and its leaders. But while I agree that Kwayana, like all public leaders, must be open to criticism, I find the nature of Freddie’s constant attacks on him to be much more than critique and criticism. It is beginning to have the distinct feel of a project aimed at diminishing him. I do not intend to be quiet on this score for much longer.

Finally, Freddie’s disenchantment and disappointment with the ‘Coalition’ has taken him to a certain place. My disenchantment and disappointment with the same ‘Coalition’ has taken me to another place. Our difference is the context we use to analyse what is happening, and ultimately locate our conclusions.

Regards,
David Hinds