GUYANA is a difficult country to comprehend politically. When I teach about this country, my students often conclude that it generally defies most political theories. Of course, Guyana is part of the larger Caribbean family which represents perhaps the most complex group of countries you will find anywhere in the world. With its mixture of different ethnic groups who arrived at different times under different circumstances, along with the long history of bondage and resistance to bondage within the context of global political and economic dynamics, the Caribbean has to be a complex space. When the rest of the world woke up yesterday to the phenomenon of Globalisation, we in the Caribbean have been conscious of its deadliness for 400 years; slavery and colonialism were vivid examples of that globalisation which Professor Rex Nettleford referred to as “a new designation for an old obscenity.”
Guyana and its Anglophone Caribbean neighbours are post-colonial societies of recent vintage. We still bear the scars of centuries of bondage and suffer from the systemic consequences of that bondage. We still exhibit some of the resistance culture which helped us overcome forced domination. But, as a society, we are also to a large extent still reflective of the political and economic status quo which obtained during that period of institutionalized bondage. In other words we have, under a new guise, held on tightly to some of the political behaviours which were used to keep us in chains.
Some have argued with much justification that after being socialised within a politico-cultural system for so long, it is inevitable that we would bring aspects of that system into the present. But I would hasten to add that it is also to be expected that the resistance culture which was nurtured during the period of bondage should also form part of our contemporary praxis. The truth is that we brought into our Independence both the authoritarian and resistance tendencies. The question, therefore, is which one has been more dominant during Independence, or have we found a way to alternate between or worse amalgamate the two tendencies.
One has to be very frustrated about what obtains at both the level of governance and leadership on the one hand and among the general citizenry on the other hand—the (inherent?) contradictions are so stark. We belong to a region whose cricket team with sheer artistry and cultural resistance were able to dominate world-cricket for two long decades, yet at the end of that period our region’s children average 40% pass in Mathematics and approximately 70% pass in our official language. The statistics for Guyana are much more dismal. Our political leaders, from the visionaries of the period of decolonisation to the political managers of now, have generally exhibited a keen understanding of our global and domestic challenges yet day- in-day- out find ways to stifle and kill the very energies which are so needed to help us overcome those challenges.
One of the glaring negatives of the PPP’s rule was the manner in which Indian-Guyanese leaders and by extension the community which they led generally remained quiet in the face of the government atrocities, even when it was clear that they were against those actions. African- Guyanese leaders and their followers were very critical of this development, even if they did not express it publicly. After all, a critical mass of African-Guyanese had publicly resisted the atrocities of the PNC government. Now that the PPP is in opposition, this new government appears to be impatient with criticisms from their supporters and the supporters are equally suspicious of criticisms emanating from within the ranks.
Many African-Guyanese have told me that they welcome my self-criticism of “our government,” but some have warned me that the Indian-Guyanese do not criticise their own. These were the very people who were critical of Indian-Guyanese when they remained quiet in the face of PPP over-reach—in effect they are asking me to emulate a behaviour which they condemned yesterday and still do today. I usually answer by saying that my critique of government is part of my activism regardless of who is in power and in this case they are aimed mostly at helping to ensure that the government does the right things.
Some government leaders have reacted to my critique by publicly chiding me in the name of the state for misusing the freedom they “gave me.” Others have gone further. The cynics would quote David Rudder who in his classic calypso-lament “1990,” observed that “the more we change, rearrange, everything stays the same.”
Who can be so culturally blind and insensitive to where the world is in 2016 that he/she would remove a woman from her position because she is pregnant? Why are we, in 2016, chasing vendors off the streets in order to tell them that they should keep their surroundings clean and abide by settled rules? What has happened to reasoning?
The wages of workers are their breath of life, so to live they require a living wage. The government has given a 1-10% increase, but the union has rejected it. The president has said that despite the rejection, he would go ahead and pay the increase while the next action by the union is awaited. I see where the president is going, but I cannot help but ask myself if he is not running the risk of being seen as saying “If you do not take it, I will go over your head and pay it.”
Why would a government spend $130 million dollars on forensic audits only to discover that people with the evidence to prosecute the wrongdoers are either reluctant or scared to give statements to the police? Some in this government have said that the PPP wasted money on the Rodney Commission of Inquiry and at the end of the day, we are no nearer to the truth. I ask—has this government wasted money on the State Audits and are we any nearer to the truth?

More of Dr. Hinds ‘writings and commentaries can be found on his YouTube Channel Hinds’ Sight: Dr. David Hinds’ Guyana-Caribbean Politics and on his website www.guyanacaribbeanpolitics.com. Send comments to dhinds6106@aol.com