Dr. Hinds’s anti-intellectual point

Jun 21, 2016 Letters

Dear Editor,

There continues to be a tendency by some in this society to elevate Walter Rodney to heights that resemble mysticism. In this month marking his 36th death anniversary Guyanese continue to hear stories about his politics that deserve to be questioned and hopefully the Working People’s Alliance (WPA) and those who promote him to such level would truthfully answer them.
It is being said that Rodney was a prophet of self-emancipation. If to be so called means being in the opposition, following said logic Cheddie Jagan and Forbes Burnham who were the major political leaders opposing British rule can be similarly identified. Equally too, such title would be befitting Jagan, Burnham, Desmond Hoyte, Robert Corbin, David Granger and Bharrat Jagdeo being Leader of the Opposition, and all other political leaders with no constitutional title as was Rodney, and others who oppose(d) government.
The argument being made by David Hinds that Rodney’s violence against the State is similar to that of Cuffy, Damon and Courtney Crum-Ewing is anti-intellectual. In the era of slavery that Cuffy and Damon lived and fought the establishment, there was no universal law by which the people were subject to it. Africans were not even considered human and equal. In the era of Rodney and Crum-Ewing laws existed making all equal and subject to the law. Unlike Rodney, Crum-Ewing never advocated or sought to remove government with the use of violence. There was no violence in Crum-Ewing’s activism or advocacy to remove the PPP/C from office and it is insulting to so malign him.
Guyanese are being told that Rodney and WPA are multiracial. This claim is not singular to Rodney or WPA. All political parties in this country, outside of ROAR that promoted being a party for Indians, have multiracial support. And the fact that a racial group may comprise the majority of support does not negate the fact of a multiracial presence. The attendance at rallies, when not translated to votes but used to claim superiority or singularity in any regard on multi-racialism is a mythical or pseudo argument.
The WPA’s claim to being multi-racial has only seen one Indian leader in the co-leadership, who is Rupert Roopnarine. How is it that Guyana’s ‘only’ multiracial party could not find another Indian or any from the other four races to appoint or anoint? It needs not be forgotten that Guyana is a land of six peoples.
This society is being told that Rodney opposed Burnham illegitimate government, yet none of the elections that occurred under Burnham was so deemed by the court. And if the reason for saying they were because this was so said by local and external groups, it needs not be forgotten that the 1997 elections which were deemed free and fair by said groups were vitiated in a High Court. What standards are being used to pronounce on elections during Burnham or the PNC era as against the 1997 vitiated elections, or the 2011 when GECOM awarded the AFC seat to the PPP/C and both elections were deemed free and fair? Legitimacy and illegitimacy cannot be determined by whims and fancies.
Another area of duplicity by the WPA is this issue of democracy. If democracy is measured only by elections, the WPA and Rodney have never been democratic in their politics or nature. Rodney, Roopnarine nor any WPA leader was ever elected by the membership of the party, neither was the membership allowed to cast their vote for a leader of choice. These leaders were imposed on the people, following the WPA’s logic of what constitutes democracy, thereby making Rodney, et al dictators.
The truth is the WPA never held any election to elect any of their leaders. If the party is comfortable doing this, shouldn’t the society be concerned that had the party, as a single force, won national elections, thereafter elections would have been a thing of the past and leaders would have been handpicked and imposed on the people as done at the party level? This is building on the logic of the WPA’s brand of democracy, because if it is practiced at the party level it is safe to assume it would have been replicated at the national level.
Finally, I read where a young lady, who attended a function on Rodney has asked why nobody wants to accept Burnham did anything wrong. I’d say to that young lady, similar question should be asked about Rodney.
The politics of Rodney is not used to create an educated society but to ensure preposterous over-glorification of him and foist on the society a saintly creature when he was far from. These pseudo-intellectual arguments being made of him and the WPA can only continue because enough people are not asking the right questions and the WPA is not being forced to answer them.
Minette Bacchus

One thought on “Dr. Hinds’s anti-intellectual point”

Shazadh Khan June 21, 2016 at 12:05 pm

Yes…Burnham had good ideas, but he was a dictator who rode roughshod over the peoples of Guyana. Who felt it knows it!!!!