Crab dance

Aug 29, 2010 Features / Columnists, Ravi Dev

---

I have tried very hard to understand the commotion over President Jagdeo’s visit to Buxton. My first reaction was that it was a symptom of our racially polarised politics: the objectors just do not want an “Indian” party to penetrate an African opposition enclave. But I said “Nah! Couldn’t be. These are all fellows that routinely denounce me for having race on my mind. They are the exemplars of “multi-racial” politics. Got to be something else.”
The facts, such as they are, appear to be fairly straightforward. Sometime ago, a committee of overseas Buxtonians had been formed to commemorate the founding of Buxton as a village by the newly-freed slaves in 1840. Plans were made and circulated to other Buxtonians, which included WPA members, Elder Eusi Kwayana and Dr. David Hinds.  A newsletter was even posted on the web: “development” of the village was high on the agenda. It is unclear whether Buxtonian Odinga Lumumba (and PPP MP) participated in the planning but after the eponymously named 170th Anniversary Committee landed and engaged locals, Mr. Lumumba evidently facilitated the hosting of the group by President Jagdeo at State House on August 5th. This was after, it should be noted, the planned activities had been consummated.
The dinner did not go down well with some Buxtonians, who held a small picketing exercise outside. One placard asked, “Jagdeo never visit Buxton as president why dine with him?” As if in response, the Committee invited the President to a meeting with residents in Buxton. Two weeks later, one of organisers could announce: “Buxtonians, the President is in the house. Today is a historic day for Buxton!” From the reports, it was a fine traditional Buxton welcome; complete with African drumming; garlands and schoolchildren waving Presidential portraits. There also appeared to have been a fine exchange of views in the packed school house.
And then all hell broke loose. WPA’s David Hinds led the charge: his ire was directed both towards the organisers and the President. He was supported by Elder Kwayana, ACDA, the PNC et al. Dubbing the President’s visit a “charade”, Dr Hinds lamented that the organisers had “mindlessly and perhaps innocently delivered the village to the political overlords.” He denounced, “the growing accommodationist attitude being promoted by some African Guyanese leaders and encouraged by the government and the ruling party…It is an act of betrayal to surrender your people in an election year to the clutches of a party and government that have destroyed the democratic and multiracial hope of 1992 which your village was instrumental in bringing to fruition.”
Overlooking as nostalgic hyperbole, the fact that Buxton voted solidly for the PNC (and so against change) in 1992, I was still taken aback at the vehemence of Dr Hinds’ reaction. When I first read of the President’s visit to Buxton, I had chalked it up as another of the regular opportunities that politicians grab at to “press the flesh” of potential voters. There are, after all, the now institutionalised Cabinet Outreaches. As one who enjoys American democracy, Dr Hinds would not be surprised that politicians reflexively have an eye out for the voters. In fact, I thought that Jagdeo was surprisingly unwilling to engage in the gratuitous pandering that usually characterises such encounters – especially as Dr Hinds pointed out, elections are in the air and Buxton is not a traditional PPP constituency.
The SN, not known to be an avidly partisan towards Jagdeo, concluded that he was “not King Midas descending upon the village as some had hoped, with no multi-million-dollar disbursements being made.” The President mentioned farming for youths but pointed to programs already in train – drainage and clearing of Buxton backlands, pig and small ruminant breeding and rearing. He mentioned also ongoing industrial training program; the Women of Worth (WoW) micro-credit scheme (up to $250,000 without collateral at six percent interest rate) for single parents and the free laptop for poor children etc.
On a request that a literacy program be reinstated, he simply promised to “examine” it among other education initiatives for the community. Questioned on whether a development plan for Buxton  – which was one of the stated goals of the overseas committee – the President pointed out, “Although you have your own anthem, Buxton is part of Guyana too. So your long-term development aspirations are the same as everyone else’s.” I thought that this was quite “tough love” during an electioneering period. The only “porkbarrel” was the promised repair of the venerable Tipperary Hall.
Dr Hinds feels that the organisers “delivered” Buxton to the PPP “on a platter” – invoking to a biblically minded people, Salome’s betrayal and deliverance of John the Baptist’s head. I obviously don’t know Buxtonians as well as the “born and bred” Dr Hinds, but I don’t think he believes that they are as pliable to the wiles of any modern day Salomes to capriciously change their votes which, after all, is still cast in secret.
And it is not that Dr Hinds believes the administration has no role to play in Buxton: in his keynote address at the launch of the 170th celebrations, he identified the lack of a high school in Buxton and called “on the powers that be to facilitate the process.” He complained, however, that Buxton had evidently become “a beggar” and declared that the Buxton he knew “demanded things”. He called on Buxton to “agitate” for its needs. The “betrayal” then, has more to do with means than ends: the committee was “accommodative” and not “agitative”.
Dr Hinds and most of those that have denounced the 170th Committee’s initiative are, I believe, supporters of the notion (as I am) that for Guyana to ever jump off the carousel of mistrust and violence that have characterised our modern political engagement, it needs (even for a while) a Unity Government that includes both the PPP and the PNC. I have a question for them. Even conceding the worse possible political motives (buying votes?) to the PPP’s visit, can they only be bludgeoned, rather than peacefully engaged, into accepting “unity”?
What does it say for one’s anti-dictatorial credentials if those with a different approach are denounced so violently?

---

---