Time for Dr David Hinds to modernise his thought set

Dear Editor,
Timely and transparently free and fair elections are key criteria for evaluating whether a nation is democratic or otherwise. But a critical outcome of that process, as is clearly outlined in Section 84 of the Representation of the People Act, Chap 1:03, is that we must ascertain and tabulate the results in a credible manner, and arrive at the final tally by extracting those numbers from the respective statements of poll (SoPs); not a self-created spreadsheet that is a figment of the Returning Officer’s imagination.
So this idea that Dr David Hinds has spawned: that we must “Scarp this election; destroy those boxes; install an Interim Government, led by Granger as President and the PPP man as Prime Minister; divide the Cabinet equally between the two sides…”, are all ideas designed to deny the people of Guyana the right to “one man/one vote”.
Such intellectually bankrupt ideas, that lack a foundation in democracy, must never be countenanced.
I had a conversation with a young doctor/politician who is not a member of the PPPC or APNU-AFC, and that conversation revealed much. From that conversation, I gathered that he did not vote for either the PPPC or APNU-AFC in 2020, and I respect his right to do so. But he demanded that his vote must be counted and his voice must be heard. But if we are allowed to follow the David Hinds model, then we are denying this young Guyanese his voice, and that is a travesty of the worst kind.
This young Guyanese has a right to choose a political party outside of the PPP or PNC, and if we are to follow David Hinds’s theory, then he would not get that chance to exercise his franchise. Elections provide opportunities for political participation by all, not just a group that David Hinds seeks to represent. The electorate has a right to choose their government by way of their votes. These votes empower the electorate politically, and their votes become an essential determinant of who should win political office.
So Dr Hinds’s suggestion is nothing but unsound and erroneous, and is based on no logical global best practice. Rather, it is grounded in tyranny and injustice. It is similar to a scenario where one who is playing a game of street cricket, because he got clean bowled, picks up the bat, the stumps and the ball and claims that because he lost his wicket, the game is over. What nonsense is this from David Hinds?
This lack of objectivity and deliberate narrow-mindedness on the part of these types of so-called thinkers expose their agenda. They have no skin in the game, but they are choosing to incite this nation. For their information, these 2020 elections will not be scrapped. Those boxes will not be destroyed. All of those votes will be counted. There shall not be an interim government in 2020. David Granger will know his fate as to whether he won or not very soon. There shall be no sharing of cabinet positions between the PNC and PPP as a precondition to the declaration of the results. The PPP will not serve as a Prime Minister to Mr. Granger because they are not rubber stamps to this process; they are winners in this nation.
The only reason the declaration of the results for Guyana in these 2020 General Elections has been problematic is because one Mr. Mingo chose not to follow the rule of law and did his own thing in an attempt to blatantly cheat the non-APNU-AFC political parties. This is not a zero-sum game, the losers must know their place, and they must come to the table, not as a superior force, but as equals within a framework that the majority of the people of Guyana did not choose them to be the next government. Let us tabulate first, and then talk.
So, those like David Hinds, who speaks unintelligently to the philosophy of “ethno-domination”, they really need to reboot their brains, because, in 2020, the ethnic landscape of Guyana is as follows: 39% Indo-Guyanese; 29% Afro-Guyanese; 21% Mixed Guyanese, and 11% Amerindian Guyanese. So, what ethnic majority is David Hinds talking about? Everyone in Guyana is a minority.
The PPPC could never have won those 2020 General Elections on the vote of their traditional base (Indo-Guyanese) because 39% can never be 51%; plus, not all of the 39% of the Indo-Guyanese would have voted for the PPPC.
So, this theory of “ethno-domination”, as is being pushed by David Hinds, has no merit.
Where was the difference of 14% or so of eligible votes that voted for the PPPC derived or sourced in these 2020 General Elections, Dr. David Hinds?
It is time for Dr David Hinds to modernize his thought set. He is a yesterday’s man with yesterday’s ideas. It is time for him to update to the latest political settings in Guyana.

Regards,
Sasenarine Singh