Dear Editor,

ANTICIPATING electoral defeat in the upcoming peoples’ choice of a tried-and-true representative government, opposition leaders – accompanied by their infantry of paper politicians – find themselves stumbling over one another in comical lustful scramble for the acquisition of political power.

Bent on manufacturing discontents, they reinvent and repackage decaying modes of incitements with hopes that such would galvanize support, and hasten distrust for the government, President Ali, Vice President Jagdeo, or even ethnic sectors of the Guyanese population that support the PPP/C.

Altogether, their ludicrous spouting of inane issues to promote hate, vilify the government, or besmirch PPP/C supporters, can be summed up in two simple words, “political babble.”
Let’s take for example some statements by David Hinds, an openly racist ideologue. Hinds, in his rabid like salivation for relevance, profusely accused Afro-Guyanese who support President Ali as being “Lick Bottom Africans,” “Lick BT Africans,” “Lick Bamzie Africans,” “House Slaves” and “Sellouts.”

Such denigration of a conscientious sector of Afro-Guyanese makes one think of the rants from an erratic pubescent lad. As co-leader of the WPA, Hinds characterization of a portion of Afro-Guyanese must be haunting to the “Spirit” of Dr. Walter Rodney – a preeminent historian, and stalwart architect of the WPA assassinated at age 38, on June 13, 1980.

Dr. Rodney – whom I knew well, and shared many hours of face-to-face exchanges, – believed and advocated for a Guyanese unity currently exemplified by the PPP/C government.

A few years before his assassination, Rodney opined that, “…there is a general awareness that is growing in the roots of both … African and Indian communities that surely the time must come when the African and Indian people will organize around their interests as producers in the Guyanese society as distinct from pursuing this myth of racial superiority or racial subjugation.”
Hinds may find it redeeming to heed Rodney’s remarks while acknowledging Guyanese increasing support for the government’s policies, and actions, in the production and formalization of a One Guyanese Unity.

Like Hinds, there is Aubrey Norton, leader of the PNC. Among his babblings – which include racism and violence – Norton declared that the PNC takes pride in the banning of food items, a policy instituted by Burnham in the 1970’s.

Anyone who experienced this period of deprivation would remember the slogans that accompanied the shortage of foodstuffs; slogans such as Lining For Soap and Butter (LFSB), Looking For Something to Ban (LFSB) – utilizing the abbreviations for Burhan’s full name, Linden Forbes Sampson Burnham.

Many would also remember License For Scarcity and Black-marketing (LFSB), an apt portrayal of the thriving Black Market economy from the 1970’s onwards. And when deprivation worsened, the slogan, Looking For Somebody Better (LFSB) became commonplace.

In addition to the deprivations resulting from the banning of foodstuffs, many would also remember Burnham’s “take over” policies which utilised GUY, the first three letters of Guyana to denote nationalisation of industries, the two most prominent being GUYBAU (Guyana Bauxite), and GUYSUCO (Guyana Sugar Corporation).

And, given the country’s economic decline, people began to coin such terms as GUYROB to denote increase incidences of “choke-and-rob”, GUYTHIEF to denote increases in burglary and larceny, and GUYQUACK to denote shortage of doctors and the use of nurses to shoulder some of the duties of physicians. Does Norton really consider such deprivations and ridicule accomplishments?

Recently, an overused political babble is the oppositions’ incessant clamour for the utilization of biometrics in the upcoming elections.

Although several writers offered reasoned comments on the complexities of biometrics, opposition leaders simply chose to ignore such. Clearly expressed, biometrics refer to the unique biological characteristics such as fingerprints, iris scans, facial characteristics commonly used to identify an individual.

Although in operation for immigration, security checks and authentication in many countries, Guyanese opposition-forces hue and cry for biometrics in voters’ identification, makes mockery of the complex requisites essential in establishing such a system nationwide.

These include, but not limited to: (i) the acquisition of costly proven technologies – both hardware and software – (ii) trained technicians, (iii) time consuming national data collection, (iv) verification and authentication of biometric data collected, (v) security measures to safeguard from hacking, and protecting one’s biometric data, (vi) integrated biometric infrastructures and data systems for accurate results across polling centers, (vii) technical competences, both in hardware and software, to keep the systems’ operations reliable, (viii) backup systems in case of failures, (ix) competent unit operators since data quality and verification can be time consuming resulting delays in authentication, (x) on site competent biometric readers to guard against false positive results, (xi) regular systems updates to ensure the inclusion of all eligible citizens, etc. Absent from the list of prerequisites is the need for bellicose political propagandists with limited knowledge of existing biometric technologies.

Finally, one should not overlook that among oppositions’ political babbles is the constant chatter for alliances against the PPP/C. Alliances such as PNC+, APNU+, AFC+, WPA+, Newer Parties+, all of which tend to reflect attributes of secular polygamous marriages, a dying system where brides, grooms and in-laws regularly squabble for recognition, status, and power.

Overall, it appears that in anticipation of electoral defeat, opposition leaders turn to political babble to sow seeds of distrust in the validity of the voting results, incite resistance, and stir up instability.

Regards,
Narayan Persaud, PhD
Professor Emeritus