THE problem with the opposition parties is ignorance, arrogance and psychological imprisonment. Five years will fly and there will be another general election and those who spent from 2025 to 2030 lamenting everything the government did are going to fall by the wayside.
In 2030, we may end up with the Barbadian enigma where no voter chose the opposition. Is it possible that only the PPP will win in 2030? It could happen and it need not happen if the opposition parties exorcise three features of their politics – ignorance, arrogance and psychological imprisonment.
The opposition parties consist of ignorant people whose ignorance knows no boundaries. Aubrey Norton and David Hinds of APNU told Guyanese that the PPP rigged the 2025 elections. When you say those things, you open yourself to ridicule because you become a spectacle of embarrassment.
No observer team, Guyanese and international, described the election results as not an accurate description of how people voted. All the observers and all the governments around the world accepted the 2025 results. Who then said it was rigged – the demolished opposition party, APNU.
When asked why the rigging allowed for WIN to get 16 seats, it will be of monumental curiosity to see how they will answer that. What kind of configurations played out to make the riggers give WIN 16 seats and none to the AFC and Forward Guyana?
Remember, Forward Guyana did not get a seat on its own. It collected leftover votes. Arrogance comes into play because Norton and Hinds will face their audience and not answer the question as to what strategy the riggers used to allocate 16 seats to WIN.
Next is the acting chairman of ANUG, Mr. Jonathan Subrian. This man’s party has a plethora of questions to answer that the public would like to see. Instead of meeting his obligations to the Guyanese people, he fired off a letter condemning the government for its intended policy of shifting its advertisement money from the traditional newspapers to the much more patronised online news houses.
Mr. Subrian is so pompous that he feels the Guyanese public does not want to hear what is going on in ANUG, but is more interested in what ANUG has to say about government advertisements. Mr. Subrian is so arrogant that he thinks the public is not interested in some scary aspects of ANUG’s politics.
For example, why did ANUG get only one seat when it signed an agreement with WIN that catered for more than one? Why is this agreement so esoteric that ANUG says it cannot be made public? Who chose the one seat that ANUG got – Azruddin Mohamed or ANUG? Is it true or false that the lady parliamentarian was not a member of ANUG at the time she was chosen? The arrogance will be there as usual because Subrian doesn’t feel he has to level with the Guyanese people, so he will not answer the questions above.
Next is Amanza Walton-Desir. She is now the leader of a party that is in parliament, so one hopes her ignorance about the death of Adrianna Younge will be cleared up. She has the obligation to at least speculate on what she described for months as the brutal murder of the young girl.
Several times, she referred to the death as a brutal murder of Ms. Younge. Brutal involves acts of violence. The second post-mortem, facilitated by the then opposition parties of WIN, APNU and AFC, ruled out the application of violence to Ms. Younge’s body. Ms. Younge died by accidental drowning, with the family and relatives facing accusations of neglect.
Ms. Wanton-Desir is now locked in a fierce battle with Dorwin Bess, her coalition partner. Mr. Bess has made some formidable arguments against Ms. Desir over seat allocation in parliament. He indicated that he could not have been fighting for the seat to be shared by him when he was not on the list and is a dual citizen.
He said his party, VPAC, is contending that an agreement to share the seat with VPAC must be honoured. Ms. Desir must compose an unambiguous statement to the press that either there was no such covenant or Mr. Bess is wrong to think so. Mr. Bess seems to have done some damage to Ms. Desir’s credibility by two statements.
The first one is that it was not VPAC that sought to wash dirty linen in public. It was Ms. Desir who made the disagreement public. Secondly, it is strange or maybe opportunistic that in an interview, Ms. Desir invoked gender to describe her treatment at the hands of VPAC.
Bess said he cannot see what the gender issue has to do with the quarrel inside the coalition. I can neither.