Race, Party Politics and what to do after the CCJ Rulings

Jun 30, 2019 Features / Columnists, Hinds' Sight with Dr. David Hinds

Last Sunday I was part of a televised panel discussion organised by Globespan 24×7 on the recent CCJ rulings. The other panelists were Gail Teixeira of the PPP and Lenox Shuman of the Liberty and Justice Party, and the moderator was former AFC member and current PPP supporter, Sasenarine Singh.
The actual topic of the program was—‘The CCJ Rulings: What next?’ It was one of the most difficult programs I have done in recent times, because the other panelists and the moderator were dead set on their positions and were not prepared to deviate from them. Further, given the preliminary comments by prospective viewers, one got the sense even before the program started, that it was going to be one of the more politically- and ethnically-biased audiences.
I knew the other panelists were hostile to the government and that the audience would be mostly PPP supporters. Yet, I did not appear on the program as the voice of any party or of the government—I was there as an independent observer and commentator. I was quite aware that I was perceived by many of the viewers as a “PNC apologist” and an “anti-Indian racist.”
I have concluded long ago that part of our political sickness in Guyana has to do with our collective inflexibility and dishonesty on the question of race and politics. Once you are opposed to the ethnic parties, their supporters and leaderships tend to label you a racist or apologist if you belong to the opposite ethnic group. You are guilty simply because of your ethnicity and your opposition to one party or the other.
The problem with such a simplistic definition of racism is that it instantly closes any discussion–It doesn’t matter what you say, you are seen in negative terms. I have publicly written or spoken tens of thousands of words, and none of those who call me racist could produce any evidence that I have ever advocated African superiority or domination or have demeaned Indian Guyanese or their culture or advocated for their domination by African Guyanese.
The “evidence” often cited is my defence of African dignity and my advocacy for their collective socio-economic and political empowerment. In effect, the logic is that if I, an African Guyanese, love my ethnicity or race, then I automatically hate Indian Guyanese.
That is the Guyana which history has fashioned for us, and which we continue to nurture to this day, largely because it amounts to political capital. It has become so much the norm that we don’t recognise its danger to our collective Guyanese being. And persons like myself who have had the good fortune to travel and to observe and study similar societies, are all too aware of our responsibility to the greater good. That is one of the reasons why I insist on speaking to Indian Guyanese audiences like the one last week and I absorb the racial insults and attacks, some of which are hardly veiled. The way you deal with that aspect of our culture is to confront it and continue to speak reason to it.
The star of the panel I referenced above was Gail Teixeira – she was the PPP spokesperson to a largely PPP audience. Shuman was tolerated because he is hostile to the government. I was the outsider for reasons discussed above.
Ms. Teixeira’s message was clear—the CCJ has ruled against the government, it should resign and call elections within three months. She never veered away from that message no matter what question was asked and, judging from their online comments, the audience loved it. This, of course, was the PPP’s message from the time the No Confidence motion was passed by majority vote in December 2018.
Mr. Shuman vacillated between the PPP’s position and a more independent one, but in the end, he came down on the side of the former. He joined Gail in pillorying the government for not upholding the rule of law. It was obvious that he saw the government as the problem. Both he and Ms. Teixeira avoided the CCJ’s president’s call for “a happy marriage between principle and practicality.”
My position was guided by that advice from the court. I argued that the way forward should be “consensus” over partisan considerations. For me, the court has done its job of interpreting the constitution and made its rulings in accordance with that interpretation. It is now time for the political leaders to do their part. I argued that the court should not do the politicians’ job for them; that they have a responsibility to the country to transcend their narrow partisan interests.
I described all the talk about the rule of law as “fluff” which is used to mask the real issue. I contended that the real issue is not the constitutionally mandated three-month timeline, but the fact that that timeline does not allow for sanitising the current voters’ list.
It is clear to me that the PPP has an interest in retaining the list in its current condition because its research shows it could win the election with it. The PPP, then, is not interested in consensus on the elections date, since that consensus would by definition have to allow for an extension beyond the three-month timeline. If there is no consensus, then the court would be forced to hand down consequential orders which the PPP hopes would include ordering elections within three months of the CCJ’s rulings.
My co-panelists threw cold water on my arguments for consensus. The comments from the audience were stinging. Only in Guyana would someone be called a racist and party apologist for advocating consensus. Then two days later, the court reiterated the very position that I was roasted for. The judges actually used the very word—consensus. I suppose they would in time be condemned for their position.
One problem with the PPP’s strategy is that the court seems reluctant to issue orders to another branch of government that could amount to breaching the principle of separation of powers. I am not sure that the court would want to make any orders that could give the impression that it is inserting itself into the politics of the country.

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.news. Send comments to [email protected]

Latest News