“Authoritarian: is a form of Government characterized by strong central power and limited political freedom, individual Freedoms are subordinate to the State and there is no Constitutional Accountability.”
According to Dr Hinds Stabroek News March 21, “the government must break the cycle of authoritarian governance.” Do we have anything as quoted above running this country?
Still smouldering from his dismissal from the Chronicle, Hinds laid out accusations, challenges and speculations. He began with “we are now reliably informed that a Senior AFC Minister has over time being raising at the Cabinet the issue of the Hinds and Lewis columns. It was the same Minister who gave the instructions to the Editor-in-Chief to axe the columns.” This knowledge presented a legitimate reason to criticize the government but he miffed it. Who is this Minister? Enquiring minds would like to know. Or is this a secret just between him, his friends and the WPA? Was he threatened not to reveal his knowledge? Going even further he challenged the AFC to “deny this version of the events.” Is this challenge a way of forcing the AFC to name the said Minister? This will never happen. Therefore it is incumbent upon him to reveal this person, then force the government to defend.
He followed up by saying: “The AFC as a party, has not said a single word.” He obviously did not read Kaieteur News of March 29, where the AFC said they are “vehemently refuting allegations that it must bear responsibility for the discontinuation of the columns in question.” If Dr Hinds is not prepared to name the Minister in this plot, does he expect us to believe that, “the Chronicle and the rest of the state media,” as he claims, “are controlled by the AFC as part of the distribution of the spoils after the elections.”? Where did he get this information from? The same source who reliably informed him in his earlier quote? Or is it because, as he claims, that Prime Minister has direct oversight of this sector?
“The AFC has from time to time hinted that it is being short changed by the APNU within the government.” That is teeth and tongue. The best of collaborations have problems real or invented. It is nothing that intelligent people cannot discuss in house and come to a reasonable understanding, taking into consideration that they are all after the same results.
Dr Hinds believes that his writing was making such an impression that it was giving the coalition grief. He was pointing out their shortcomings, which was revealing their authoritarian style of governance. And with elections on the horizon his missives could have held sway with a number of voters, turning them back to the alternative. If anything Dr Hinds should put his ears to the ground and listen to the real people, not the few with their own axes to grind who are incensed by his dismissal, but the real people who categorically think that he is nothing more than a nuisance.
His Sunday, April 1 Kaieteur News article on Dr Jagan, was patronizing at best and pathetic at worst. As an aside Hinds agreed with his compatriot “in urging a review of the WPA’s role in the Government.” My suggestion would be for them to leave the coalition and embark on their own. The pipe dream that Rodney had that the WPA could have made strides against the PPP with Dr Jagan at the helm in this racist country was just that, a pipe dream. Hoyte had the same dream, make unlimited concessions, and attack your own. The 1992 results showed where water runs in the drains but blood runs in the veins.