My observations on issues raised in Dr Hinds’ desultory and disjointed attempt at political analysis

Dear Editor,
Please permit me to respond to Dr Hinds’ December 15, 2019, column in Kaieteur News captioned, “Rejecting the PPP’s twisted narrative”.
First, Dr Hinds’ thesis was the PPP is “the worst Government in post-colonial Guyana and the Anglophone Caribbean”. I was hoping for an analysis grounded in the post-colonial Guyanese history looking at the various Guyanese Governments since 1966.
At least a cursory comparison of the Burnham era to Hoyte, Jagan to Jagdeo, Jagdeo to Ramotar, and Ramotar to Granger would have been the starting point of such an analysis. Dr Hinds clearly omitted Anglophone Caribbean any analysis of the Caribbean – no mention of Eric Williams, Errol Barrow, Eric Gary, Maurice Bishop, Michael Manley, Edward Seaga, etc.
Instead, he went into intellectual hallucination with ethereal visions of “Germany under Hitler, the USA in the era of slavery and segregation, South Africa under apartheid and Europe as colonial masters…” Once again, the public is treated to another helping of Dr Hinds’ poor writing: mediocrity masquerading as scholarship.
Secondly, Dr Hinds, through his writings, is posturing as the logical successor to the incompetent demolition expert Walter Rodney. Hinds with his subliminally racist “ethno-racial” paradigm might actually be the successor to the “Pan-Africanist.” Instead of promulgating a national policy to benefit all Guyanese, Hinds focuses narrowly on his ethnic group.
What Guyanese need is a “Guyanese nationalist” – someone who places the nation’s interest above party, racial, and religious interests.
Thirdly, Dr Hinds tries assiduously to portray the WPA as some sort of entity that was “post-racial.” In fact, Rodney and WPA’s success was the pure distillate of the toxic Guyanese racial mix. Indians and other ethnic groups did not gravitate to Rodney and the WPA based on an economic platform.
Rather, the question facing the disaffected PNC base: Who was the more acceptable alternative to Burnham? Rodney or Jagan? Based on Hinds’ “ethno-racial” paradigm, Rodney was the more racially palatable candidate for the disaffected PNC base. The urban PPP supporters were disappointed by Jagan and the PPP’s inability to advocate for their interest.
In an expression of hopelessness – “anybody but Burnham” they cast their lot with Rodney because they believed that the army and political leadership would not permit Jagan/PPP to govern.
Rodney’s death and the emergence of Rupert Roopnaraine was an anathema to the “disaffected PNC” support of the WPA. Hence, they returned to the folds of the PNC. Analogously, the “disappointed PPP” supporters viewed Roopnaraine as weak and ineffectual and they returned to the PPP.
Fourthly, Dr Hinds humorously reminds me of Donald Trump who sees Obama as the bogeyman for everything wrong. Similarly, Hinds has the same affliction – Jagdeo is the bogeyman. Hinds asserts, “many Indians [give] thanks to Jagdeo and the Phantom groups.” Hinds has no idea of the many Indians he professes to make intelligible to the reading public. Many credit Roger Khan with countering the “criminals, freedom fighters and hustlers”.
These are my observations to some of the issues raised in Dr Hinds’ desultory and disjointed attempt at political analysis.

Roger Ally