APNU+AFC at 3: Moses, David and Lincoln

Jun 07, 2018 Features / Columnists, Freddie Kissoon

This fifth article on the assessment of three years of APNU and the AFC in government concludes the series. Quite honestly, I think the performance has been so mediocre and controversial that I could have stretched the series to ten, literally ten evaluations. I have settled for five.
Today, I finish the compilation by contextualizing the removal of David Hinds and Lincoln Lewis as columnists with the Chronicle. For me, that act has to be seen in the context of the ubiquity of fear that has paralyzed the psyche of the Guyanese citizen since the break-up of the Burnham/Jagan-led PPP in 1955. It reached terrible levels under President Burnham and from thereon, fear of even openly disagreeing with government on the most inconsequential policy, has been the most salient characteristic of this nation.
I have not seen in the condemnation of and disagreement with the removal of Hinds and Lewis – by organizations and individuals who criticized the government because they think the government made the decision – the contextual meaning of the personalities involved, that is, the historical status of Hinds and Lewis. I will use that political nuance to argue that the Hinds/Lewis imbroglio has increased that traditional fear factor and it underlies the creeping intolerance for democratic thought by this three-year-old regime.
I would argue that despite the semi-secret salary hike and other mistakes, some of which could be categorized as completely unacceptable, the Hinds/Lewis imbroglio is the most deadly and dangerous mistake, and the most barefaced decision this government has taken in its three-year-old existence. I hasten to add the Lewis/Hinds incident has not only dented the credibility of the regime, but has caused it to lose support, and caused people to question this country’s future democratic existence.
Before we look at what I refer to above as the contextual meaning of the personalities, I want to lay down what I believe, and do not believe, happened at the Chronicle. I do not believe the Chronicle’s leadership made the decision to drop Hinds and Lewis. The Chronicle’s editor can tomorrow reject what is written here, but he cannot take away what I believe in.
It is this columnist’s opinion that top political leaders did not want Hinds and Lewis writing critically of the government and they stopped the columns. This is my belief, and I will not drop it because the government said it was not involved. The President and Minister Trotman stated that there was no central decision involved. It is your right to believe them. It is my right to disbelieve. Let us now move to the decision and its relation to the existence of fear.
Hinds and Lewis are not overnight sensations. They have been around for a long time, and I mean a very long time, as people who have struggled historically. Their record is large, and that may be a light word to use. Both men have faced decades of harassment, with Hinds going to jail for three years. Hinds was part of the WPA’s leadership that negotiated the formation of APNU. Hinds was charged as recent as 2011 along with many leaders of the PNC for street protest against the 2011 election results.
The contextual meaning of the Hinds/Lewis/Chronicle event is that it can only drive the instinct of fear deeper in every Guyanese. The thinking is obvious or one can say commonsensical. It goes like this. Look how big and iconic Hinds and Lewis are, and look at the intolerance shown to them, who am I to criticize this government when I am just a small person. If they can do that to Hinds and Lewis then they will do it to everyone else.
That kind of thinking was immediately born among the population after the Chronicle thing became public. The fear this nation has lived with for the past sixty years was seriously deepened by the Hinds/Lewis incident. It is only natural and logical for young people, far younger than Hinds and Lewis, to say they will not publicly chastise the State, because look how intolerant the government was of Lewis and Hinds.
The fear can only increase also, because of the silence of Nagamootoo. Here again context comes in. Nagamootoo is seen as someone who fought alongside Hinds and Lewis for over forty years. The Chronicle comes under his jurisdiction. He has uttered not even one word on the issue. The logical thinking again is that even someone like Nagamootoo has become wary of criticism against the APNU+AFC coalition and will not tolerate it.
To continue to survive in Guyana, fear is the key.

Discover more from Kaieteur News

Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.

Latest News