In anticipation of electoral defeat opposition leaders turn to political babble

Dear Editor
Anticipating electoral defeat in the upcoming peoples’ choice of a tried-and-true representative
government, opposition leaders – accompanied by their infantry of copycat politicians – find
themselves stumbling over one another in comical, lustful scramble for the acquisition of political
power.
Bent on manufacturing discontents, they reinvent and repackage decaying modes of
incitements, with hopes that such would galvanize support, and hasten distrust for the
government, President Ali, Vice President Jagdeo, or even ethnic sectors of the Guyanese
population that support the PPP/C.
Altogether, their ludicrous spouting of inane issues to promote hate, vilify the government, or besmirch PPP/C supporters, can be summed up in two simple words, “political babble.”
Let’s take for example some statements by David Hinds, an openly racist ideologue. Hinds, in his
rabid-like salivation for relevance, profusely accused Afro-Guyanese who support President Ali
as being “Lick Bottom Africans,” “Lick BT Africans,” “Lick Bamzie Africans,” “House Slaves”
and “Sellouts.”
Such denigration of a conscientious sector of Afro-Guyanese makes one think of the rants from an erratic pubescent lad. As co-leader of the WPA, Hinds’ characterization of a portion of Afro-Guyanese must be haunting to the “Spirit” of Dr. Walter Rodney – a pre-eminent historian, and stalwart architect of the WPA, assassinated at age 38, on June 13, 1980.
Dr. Rodney – whom I knew well, and shared many hours of face-to-face exchanges – believed
and advocated for a Guyanese unity currently exemplified by the PPP/C government.
A few years before his assassination, Rodney opined that, “…there is a general awareness that is
growing in the roots of both … African and Indian communities, that surely the time must come
when the African and Indian people will organize around their interests as producers in the
Guyanese society, as distinct from pursuing this myth of racial superiority or racial subjugation.”
Hinds may find it redeeming to heed Rodney’s remarks while acknowledging Guyanese increasing support for the government’s policies, and actions, in the production and formalization of a One Guyanese Unity.
Like Hinds, there is Aubrey Norton, leader of the PNC. Among his babblings – which include
racism and violence – Norton declared that the PNC takes pride in the banning of food items, a
policy instituted by Burnham in the 1970’s.
Anyone who experienced this period of deprivation would remember the slogans that accompanied the shortage of foodstuffs; slogans such as ‘Lining For Soap and Butter’ (LFSB), ‘Looking For Something to Ban’ (LFSB) – utilizing the abbreviations for Burham’s full name, Linden Forbes Sampson Burnham.
Many would also remember License For Scarcity and Black-marketing (LFSB), an apt portrayal of the thriving Black Market economy from the 1970’s onwards. And when deprivation worsened, the slogan, Looking For Somebody Better (LFSB) became commonplace.
In addition to the deprivations resulting from the banning of foodstuffs, many would also
remember Burnham’s “take over” policies which utilized GUY, the first three letters of Guyana
to denote nationalization of industries, the two most prominent being GUYBAU (Guyana
Bauxite), and GUYSUCO (Guyana Sugar Corporation).
And, given the country’s economic decline, people began to coin such terms as GUYROB to denote increase incidences of “choke-and-rob”; GUYTHIEF to denote increases in burglary and larceny, and GUYQUACK to denote shortage of doctors and the use of nurses to shoulder some of the duties of physicians.
Does Norton really consider such deprivations and ridicule, accomplishments?
Recently, an overused political babble is the oppositions’ incessant clamour for the utilization of
biometrics in the upcoming elections.
Although several writers offered reasoned comments on the complexities of biometrics, opposition leaders simply chose to ignore such. Clearly expressed, biometrics refer to the unique biological characteristics such as fingerprints, iris scans, facial characteristics commonly used to identify an individual.
Although in operation for immigration, security checks and authentication in many countries, Guyanese opposition-forces hue and cry for biometrics in voters’ identification, makes mockery of the complex requisites essential in establishing such a system nationwide.

These include, but are not limited to: (i) the acquisition of costly proven technologies – both hardware and software – (ii) trained technicians, (iii) time consuming national data collection, (iv) verification and authentication of biometric data collected, (v) security measures to safeguard from hacking, and protecting one’s biometric data, (vi) integrated biometric infrastructures and data systems for accurate results across polling centres, (vii) technical competences, both in hardware and software, to keep the systems’ operations reliable, (viii) backup systems in case of failures, (ix) competent unit operators since
data quality and verification can be time consuming resulting delays in authentication, (x) on site
competent biometric readers to guard against false positive results, (xi) regular systems updates
to ensure the inclusion of all eligible citizens, etc.
Absent from the list of prerequisites is the need for bellicose political propagandists with limited knowledge of existing biometric technologies.
Finally, one should not overlook that among oppositions’ political babbles is the constant advocation for alliances against the PPP/C. Alliances such as PNC+, APNU+, AFC+, WPA+, Newer Parties+; all of which tend to reflect attributes of secular polygamous marriages, a dying system where brides, grooms and in-laws regularly squabble for recognition, status, and power.
Overall, it appears that in anticipation of electoral defeat, opposition leaders turn to political
babble to sow seeds of distrust in the validity of the voting results, incite resistance, and stir up
instability.

Yours sincerely,
Narayan Persaud, PhD
Professor Emeritus