Dear Editor,
The WPA is an enigmatic political force in Guyana, and only serious analytical and historical effort will help unravel their excursions into race-based political mobilization, and their recurring calls for violent actions against the state. I submit some arguments for your consideration below.

Before we proceed with the actions of the WPA, we need to establish a few key concepts from political theory and political sociology. First, we must distinguish between progressive and regressive ethnic nationalism. Progressive ethnic nationalism has its roots in the long historical struggles of the peoples of the Third World who fought against white racial supremacy. This fight was simultaneously a fight for national liberation and political independence. The objective was the national sovereignty for Black and Brown peoples worldwide.

Regressive nationalism occurs when political actors try to build support by falsely claiming to be victims of ethnic and racial exclusion and oppression. In the US, for instance, right-wing elements falsely claim that White folks are the real victims, and that they have been left behind because liberals give Black people and immigrants privileges poor White folks do not enjoy.
Further, readers must note the fundamental difference between aggregation and mobilization. Aggregation is the method of democratic politics through free and fair elections. Aggregation of interest is done through political parties that compete for votes. Mobilization is when people are “amassed”, as when the military mobilises an army to fight war.

We also need to understand populism. Most definitions of populism are based on a charismatic leader who claims to be the savior of an oppressed people, and who promises through a rhetoric of grievance, to mobilize individuals while telling them that they are the “real” people. Populist movements can be from the left or the right. In recent times, right-wing populism has been based on notions of protecting ethno-racial identities.

Theda Skocpol, the renowned historical sociologist at Harvard University, for instance, found that the most prominent issue in the founding of the right-wing Tea Party was the rise and election of Barack Obama. Most of their members, as did most Americans at that time, also saw Obama as a Muslim. The Tea Party movement was a conduit to Trumpian populism.

Now, I am arguing here that the WPA began as a progressive Ethno-Marxist (as distinct from Western Marxist) movement based on a critique of global racial capitalism. When Rodney entered the politics of Guyana, he brought that critical perspective with him. He did, however, also believe in armed struggle, not only in Guyana, but elsewhere.

The WPA was not (and is not now) an electoral party, meaning its modus operandi was not to win elections.

After Rodney was assassinated, the WPA continued its politicking but it became increasingly regressive. During the days of the PCD, for instance, the WPA was adamant that Cheddi Jagan should not be the presidential candidate because he, according to WPA ethno-analysis, would not have been acceptable to Afro-Guyanese. Yet, WPA intellectuals such as Dr. David Hinds found it fit to insist that the same Desmond Hoyte who had been a top participant in rigged elections, must be the presidential candidate. Paul Tennassee of the DLM rejected the idea of Hoyte as head of the ticket because, as he rightfully claimed, Hoyte was an “electoral bandit”.

The position of the WPA in the PCD regarding the 1992 elections was a portent of things to come. Bit by bit, the WPA moved away from critical, progressive, anti-racist politics, to one of ethno-racial mobilization; one where the only acceptable outcome is when there is an African president. It does not matter if an election is rigged or “frigged”. The most important objective of WPA politics is a “Black” president.

Rodney was able to pull in large multi-racial crowds. But it is rather ironic that the same WPA that never fails to make this point, always constructs the WPA as a Black movement. Figures like Rupert Roopnarine, Moses Bhagwan, or Wazir Mohammed are simply ignored in the ethno-racial performances of WPA intellectuals. Put differently, in the very moments when the WPA claims to be non-racial, they practice ethno-bullyism against their own comrades! This is a predictable outcome of regressive ethno-nationalism.

The so called non-electoral approach by the WPA worked when they had a man of the caliber in the person of Rodney, a person steeped in the history of this country, and someone who had a global view of things. Absent Rodney, the WPA has no credibility to even call a public meeting. This has left them with two options.

The first option is to kill history by joining the same PNC that, according to WPA pronouncements, harmed numerous of its members. The WPA loves APNU despite the PNCR being at the leading edge of the 2020 rigging attempt. This is a direct consequence of regressive ethno-nationalism.

Despite its permanent state of leader-lessness, the WPA has become a champion of racial populism. This means that its discourses are invariably couched in the language of “Black suffering.” All persons of African descent, whether in high state offices, or private sector leaders, are considered house slaves because they have become successful and do not share in the populist bitterness of the handful of political recalcitrant that refuse to heed the dynamic of change going on in this country.

A race traitor for the WPA is defined as any person of African ancestry in Guyana who is successful, excepting for those that are part of the movement of WPA type African racial populism, Guyana style. The WPA’s historic underbelly of opposition through violent rhetoric is still intact and forms an integral part of WPA’s vision.

The current re-invention of Burnham by some WPA activist is indicative of a new “grounding” in regressive ethno-nationalism and racial populism. In this way, the WPA has moved from a progressive, Marxist, working-class movement to a right-wing, ethno-nationalist movement based on racial populism. As Attorney General Nandlall has warned, the violent threats associated with this new direction could be deemed criminal, or even treasonous.

Sincerely,
Dr. Randolph Persaud