Dear Editor,
There is a growing debate as to who is best fitted to be the presidential candidate if an agreement is reached during the coalition talks between the APNU and the AFC. Letters on the subject have popped up in all of the newspapers in Guyana and columnists from the two leading newspapers have also weighed in giving their perspectives and insights. Bloggers who have become a growing part of our political discourse have shared and continue to share their views daily on this key coalition position. Therefore, given the complex nature of our politics, it is understandable that past political sentiments will have a significant bearing on this debate.
One of Guyana’s foremost political activists, David Hinds, who needs no introduction to your audience, wrote a letter which was carried by Stabroek News in its January 26 edition titled ‘After 23 years of an Indian Guyanese presidency, African Guyanese are being asked to vote for another.’ Dr Hinds’ letter was seen as an affront to the perceived values we hold dear but never display.
Like most multi-ethnic societies the issue of race is always a contentious one, but to give credit to Dr Hinds, nowhere in his letter was he disrespectful to anyone or any race. He merely posits the perspective “that the architects of the AFC proposal are probably and I am sure unintentionally taking African Guyanese ethnic sensitivities for granted, while shielding and/or appeasing Indian Guyanese.” Politically, on a national level, this is not new. There are numerous instances where this particular behaviour is evident. Case in point, AFC chairman, Nigel Hughes, has highlighted, in his letter carried by Kaieteur News in its January 28 edition titled ‘A vicious case of discrimination,’ how African Guyanese workers are treated in comparison to their fellow Indian Guyanese workers under the current government. Mr Hughes’s letter painfully showed the plight of African Guyanese workers and it also supports Dr Hinds’s second premise of African Guyanese having “…a higher level of desperation that in turn would drive them to ignore their normal ethnic considerations.” What these workers, and the African Guyanese population at large, must decide is whether to allow the PPP to return to government and continue to endure similar or worse treatment, or support an Indian candidate under a different banner (party) and hope for the best. That’s the reality I believe political activist David Hinds was alluding to.
We all know the PPP has been nothing but disaster for this country and we all want to see the back of this party, but to sell the idea, directly or indirectly, to the voting public that Indian Guyanese will not vote for an African Guyanese for President is ludicrous. It’s the same scepticism many had about white Americans when President Obama ran in 2008. The argument being made in many circles that only an Indian coalition presidential candidate will appeal to the large Indian voting bloc of the PPP is an assault on the intelligence of Indian Guyanese and an attack on the competencies of African Guyanese to deliver a message of unity and prosperity for all.
I do not doubt the competence of Mr Moses Nagamootoo to appeal to Indian Guyanese just like I do not doubt the competence of any African Guyanese to appeal to African Guyanese. However, at the same time the question raised by David Hinds, of asking African Guyanese after 23 years of an Indian presidency to vote for another Indian presidency must be answered honestly. Even my favourite columnist, Freddie Kissoon, has put forward a stellar case for Moses to the extent that he believes Mr Nagamootoo deserves to be president and it should not be denied him. Such a statement certainly disenfranchised any African Guyanese from leading the coalition. Why is it that Mr Nagamootoo can only be effective as the leader of the coalition and not as a prominent member of the coalition? Does this mean that if he is not the leader of the coalition he would not work just as hard to gain the Indian votes? Will Indians refuse to vote for the coalition if he is not the leader? Something is not right in this equation and we seem reluctant to discuss the coefficients and the constants of it. What we have here, is a party which wants to lead the coalition but does not believe its African leaders are competent enough to lead it.
My letter is not a case to support Mr David Granger as the leader of the coalition. I did not support Mr Granger in the 2011 election and I see no reason to support him this election cycle. My position is rooted in the founding principle of the AFC party, which they have now abandoned: ethnic rotation of leadership. I believe because of the ethnic nature of our politics ethnic rotation of leadership is critical, until we mature as a nation where it is no longer needed. I believe the subject David Hinds raised, one of racial-social comparison, is one that the founding leaders of the AFC took into consideration when they adopted ethnic leadership rotation because they knew racial-social comparison will be an issue in every election. Given the history of the AFC thus far, I believe Indian Guyanese will vote for an African Guyanese if the AFC supports one from their ranks for the leader of the coalition. This would be a win for AFC on every front.
Yours faithfully,
Lloyd Booker
