I HAVE written often on this page that growing up on D’urban Street in Wortmanville, people would say that when you get a jumbie lash, you don’t normally survive. I cannot see how PNC leader, Aubrey Norton, could survive the jumbie lash David Hinds inflicted upon him.
In common Guyanese parlance, they say that “mouth open, story jump out.” Hinds opened his mouth and what he had to say about Norton means either Norton goes or Hinds goes. A year before the general election of 2025, the talk in political society was that Norton’s time was up and he should give way to another leader who should take the PNC into the 2025 election.
As the pre-election hemorrhage continued, the anti-Norton crescendo was reached when Nigel Hughes as leader of the AFC frowned on Norton being the presidential candidate in an APNU- AFC coalition.
The 2025 election result was the most damaging in the history of the PNC. The devastation was incredible. Four insufferable moments permeated the PNC. One was that there was a loss of over 100,000 votes; a loss of 20 seats, the loss of every regional government the PNC controlled pre-2025 and the loss of the Leader of the Opposition position.
It was unheard of in modern politics that the leader of such a crushed party would stay on. There is no one sitting in the PNC’s general council or in the PNC’s parliamentary group that have cited Norton as the reason for the election decapitation. All those in the PNC leadership that cited the Norton factor have exited the PNC.
Enter David Hinds. Last week in one of his podcasts titled, “Politics 101” his topic was “How to Analyse Politics.” Please follow carefully the point, the main point, the essential point, the decisive reason given by Hinds as to why the PNC lost in 2025.
Hinds said that history shows that each time the PNC won government in an election, it adopted the same tried and tested methodology. It secures its African traditional base and the votes to send the PNC over the 50 percent mark came from small parties. He said the smaller parties in each victory, gave the PNC cross over votes (CVs).
He argued that in 1964, the United Force brought the Portuguese, Amerindian and urban Indian votes to the PNC’s victory while the PNC topped the votes with its African base. Hinds argued that in 2015, the PNC won the general election because the AFC did for the PNC was the United Force did for the PNC in 1964.
He argued that the PNC won the 2015 election because the PNC held its African base and the AFC brought CVs. He intoned that the PPP rigged the 2020 poll but the PNC and AFC actually won it.
Hinds went on to cite the reason the PNC is not in power after the 2025 election. He offers three factors. One is the rigging and vote-buying by the PPP. The other is that the PNC did not organise and secure its African base. He repeatedly uttered that phrase. In several instances, he said: “In 2025, the PNC did not “run up” its African base” By “run up” he obviously meant, “organise its African base.”
The third reason for the PNC’s 2025 defeats is that it failed to secure a partner that would bring in the CVs. Two discussions will await another column. One is what votes then did the coalition partners in APNU bring to the PNC in the 2025 election, and why it is possible for the PNC to continue winning and the PPP continue losing?
So, there you have it. Hinds gave three reasons for the PNC’s defeat in 2025. Let’s leave out the vulgarity of Hinds’ mentality about the PPP rigging. If as Hinds is claiming that the PNC did not “run up” its base and failed to get a partner to bring in CVs, then that has to be an indictment of Norton’s leadership.
Aubrey Norton led the PNC into the 2025 election as its presidential candidate having possessed 40 years of experience with the PNC. If the PNC did not organise, galvanise and stimulate its African base then how could that not be a gargantuan accusation against Norton?
After 40 years on expedience inside the PNC, Norton could not find a partner to give the CVs to the PNC in 2025, then how could there not be condemnation of Norton? Can Norton defend himself against Hinds? Is Hinds willing to stick with his outline? One will have to go? Who do you think it will be? Ask me.

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.