Racially split voting is indeed the root of the issue

Dear Editor,

Mr. David Hinds writes that Guyana’s problem is larger than simply rigging. He is correct. Racially split voting is indeed the root of the issue. He writes that the Walter Rodney he knew never simplistically opposed PNC election rigging. This seems to fit with the public history and the writings of Mr. Rodney, who tried to promote a mass movement of consciousness change where people powered the government through their awareness of class struggle domestically and internationally, thus eschewing racial conflict.

This is a wonderful place for Guyana to end up if we can get there, but Mr. Hinds leaves me questioning a few things about how we can achieve Rodney’s goal under an illegitimate PNC government.
For one thing, Walter Rodney did in fact speak out against PNC rigging while fighting for a long-term solution, knowing full well that the racial voting of his day would likely hand government over to a PPP hegemony powered by racially split voting. He never let the larger view get in the way of calling out the clear injustice of rigged elections. I suspect he saw the establishment of fair elections as a prerequisite for social change.

Secondly, the 2011 and 2015 elections clearly showed the waning of racial voting at that time. A PNC led by one of Forbes Burnham’s right-hand men was freely voted into office with the support of a significant number of Guyanese who consciously abandoned racial loyalty for a larger nationalist concern.

Guyana’s racial dynamics are a serious problem, but they are not impossible to defeat. Before the PNC decided to cast us all back into a recreation of the 1960s with their current rigging attempt, Guyana had made the most progress we had ever seen towards abandoning racial voting dynamics. Saying that opposing rigging is handing over the country to one-party domination seems to ignore the fact that the PPP was voted out of office just one election ago.

And speaking of one-party domination, I would like Mr. Hinds to clarify how it is better to let the PNC get away with rigging. Mr. Hinds said that he will be fighting for Democracy in 2025 and that he will fight for all races to be represented in the halls of power. But if we accept the idea that the PNC and PPP are equally reprehensible, then it means Hinds has to fight both to achieve his aims.

How is fighting the PNC made easier by letting them take control of the treasury, the security apparatus and the state through non-credible elections? Especially when the PNC will probably be forced to hold on to power through non-democratic means? Not speaking against the rigging of elections is de facto consent to it. It will strengthen the power of the PNC to block the kinds of reforms that Mr. Hinds advocates – to a point that is beyond what a PPP government could achieve. Not to mention the huge amount of racial distrust and animosity it breeds on both sides.

At this moment the PNC is pushing its supporters to accept cheating as a strategy. How can a greater political consciousness take hold in the ruling PNC in such an atmosphere? An undemocratic PNC would be greatest source of frustration to Walter Rodney’s dreams of class-conscious populace that Guyana could see.

Imam Baksh