IN the March 2020 elections, the APNU+AFC got 218,000 votes. It is unclear how much of that went individually to the paper parties that comprised APNU, the PNC itself and the AFC itself.
What the researchers have that furnishes their research with plausibility is the GECOM publication that details how votes were cast in the total areas of the entire country.
What this means is that in Kitty in Georgetown, in Christianburg in Linden, in Parika in Region Three, you can know how much the PPP, APNU and AFC got.
The researcher has to use logical deduction to know how the PNC, the PPP and the AFC fared. If you take a predominantly Indian village that returned a huge victory for the PPP, then simple logical deduction would tell you that the AFC did not split the Indian vote in that enclave.

My belief is that the 218,000 votes APNU+AFC got came from that section of the electorate that would have voted for the PNC if the PNC did not go with APNU and the AFC. Symbolism in electoral politics in 2025 in Guyana cannot bring votes to a political party. This is where the PNC lacks an intellectual understanding of dynamic changes in the Guyana.
The year 2025 will give no generosity to small parties that belong to an entity named APNU. The year 2025 will not give any recognition to the WPA. The year 2025 will not offer substantial electoral support to the AFC. I will come back to why I use the word, “substantial.” The reason for this reality is that dialectics are inevitable and they will continue to shape the destiny of the world.

The WPA as a living organism died decades ago. The PNC in 2020 went into an electoral alliance with some paper parties and a dying outfit named, Alliance For Change, the reason being symbolism. The PNC felt that the partnership in APNU and the alliance with the AFC symbolised racial and political unity that was important. It may have been important symbolically but not electorally. I repeat – if the PNC went in March 2020 on its own it would have still secured that figure of 218,000.

Against the dialectical changes over the past decade, it is both amazing and confusing that the PNC wants an alliance with the WPA and thus supports the malignant racism of the WPA. Norton’s decline as an analytical politician is colossal.

Norton must be the only PNC leader that does not give due recognition to the fact that the PNC is a historic institution with substantial following in Guyana. So he endears himself to the lunatic fringe, refusing to realise that the Leader of the Opposition is seen by Guyanese with different lenses as the lunatic fringe of Hinds, Ogunseye, Burke and Benschop.
Hinds can afford to say the most irrational things because he has absolutely nothing to lose politically. No one will attend a campaign meeting headlined by Hinds. High school kids will not fill the auditorium to listen to Hinds. But they will if it is Norton because they perceive Norton to be a significant political figure who leads the opposition in parliament, leads an important political organisation and can attract lots of votes during election time. So they want to hear what Norton has to say. For them Hinds, belongs to the lunatic fringe.

Against the background of this reality, it is impossible to understand why Norton would rationalise the political degeneracy of David Hinds. It makes no sense because Hinds brings no value to the electoral prospects of Norton. Should Hinds attack Norton, it will not cause PNC voters to switch. I now will explain why I use the word “substantial” above in relation to the AFC.
I did not write that AFC will get zero votes. I wrote it will not get substantial votes. My point is that with Nigel Hughes as AFC leader, there is the possibility that AFC can steal votes from the PNC. Simona Broomes’ votes will come from the PNC not the PPP. So Norton should ignore Hinds and try to cozy up to people who are likely to steal PNC’s votes.

So it has to be an act of stupidity or irrationality or self-destruction for Norton to whitewash the recent insane, racist ramblings from Hinds. First, instead of condemning the racist emotions of Hinds, he opted to say, he would have used different language. It is not the language of Hinds. It is the meaning in his mind that Norton should address.
Secondly, in what has to be a costly mistake of Norton, he told the Chronicle that we should not determine what people should say. Really Aubrey! What are you smoking?

DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in this column are solely those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the official policy or position of the Guyana National Newspapers Limited.