IN a vivid exhibition of polarising politics, WPA Co-Leader David Hinds has once again launched a set of vile and inflammatory remarks against Afro-Guyanese citizens. His latest utterances on his programme ‘Politics 101′ are not only hugely objectionable, but a very real and present threat to Guyana’s delicate racial equilibrium and democratic hopes.

Hinds’ use of insulting terms like “lick bottoms” and “house slaves” to describe Afro-Guyanese who support the incumbent government is just reprehensible. Not only is it insulting, but it also seeks to strip these citizens of their dignity and freedom to make independent political choices.

It’s a brazen effort to shame and frighten Afro-Guyanese into voting for a particular political ideology, regardless of their life experiences or conviction.
Worse in Hinds’ statements, though, is the circumstance under which they were uttered. During Black History Month, a time when praise and respect should be afforded to the accomplishments and plight of people of African heritage, Hinds saw it fit to demean and belittle members of his own race. This is a serious error of respect for the very individuals whom he purportedly represents and speaks for.
Most concerning is the WPA Co-Leader’s insistence on boiling Guyana’s political crisis down to solely racial lines. In demanding ethnic-nationalist leadership instead of merit or policy stance, Hinds is promoting the very same

racial polarisation that has for so long afflicted Guyanese politics. This backward thinking contradicts the pursuit of a more integrated and cohesive nation.
Hinds’ rhetoric forms part of an unsettling pattern within the WPA and opposition altogether. It follows the similarly inciting statements made by WPA executive member Tacuma Ogunseye in 2023, in which he urged the

Disciplined Services to “turn their guns on the state”. The comments do not just inflame racial antagonism, they also frontally threaten Guyana’s democratic institutions and rule of law.
The significance of Hinds’ statement goes beyond political angst. By promising ‘repercussions’ against Afro-Guyanese who support the incumbent administration, he is actually threatening compatriots for casting their ballots as they wish. That threat cannot have any place in an equal and free society.

It must be mentioned that Hinds’ utterances are not one-off occurrences but reflective of an alarming drift towards the invocation of racial rhetoric for political mobilisation. The tactic not only entrenches current fault lines but deflects discussion away from the core concerns of all Guyanese regardless of race.

As Guyana struggles to overcome its complicated racial past, politicians such as Hinds ought to be seeking bridges, not barriers. The country’s future rests on transcending the politics of racial conflict and concentrating on policy in the best interest of all Guyanese, irrespective of ethnic background.

It is essential that all Guyanese, notwithstanding political affiliations, condemn such divisive rhetoric and strive towards a more united and inclusive society.