Dear Editor,
Since SN is the only national print medium I ask to utilise to share timely thoughts, it is with respect that I request a little space to respond to Dr David Hinds – proud afro-centric Buxtonian and dual citizen of Arizona, U.S.A.
He has mentioned some of my remarks presented via my last Frankly Speaking column (SN Nov 19, 2021). Dr David – a shrewd practiced wordsmith and political manipulator of ideas in collision with his – sought to ridicule my own opposition to last year’s Coalition power-grab rigging replete with a veiled demand for an “explanation” of my current “stance”, supposedly pro-PPP. His Village Voice column, “The Truth of the Matter” (??) (Nov 21-27, 2021) was captioned “Governing like thugs”.
Before I respond specifically and directly, I digress to reiterate – firstly – that I do appreciate politically aware persons’ democratic right to change their minds and their parties. Sometimes the somersaults are justified. Sometimes you need not switch publicly or physically to a former opposing group. (Dr Hinds would no doubt argue that his WPA Revolutionary Founder Dr Rodney would have actually approved the WPA remnants aligning with the Brigadier’s “Partnership” in 2014/2015 to oppose Jagdeo’s PPP.)
So I don’t find it difficult to accept Dr David’s switch to a Party which once jailed him. Circumstances often determine political evaluations. Even if they dictate bids to remain relevant.
Secondly, Dr Hinds’ mention of my thoughts of last Friday’s came even as I was composing this Friday’s column examining how shrewdly the current opposition is transferring the PNC tradition and cherished characteristic of electoral engineering onto the PPP!
Hinds’ mention of my Friday’s remarks was obviously motivated by my query as to whether the now-incumbent PPP is being mindful of their day-to-day administrative management and general governance, as the international community which nobly rendered solidarity against electoral theft last year, monitors their (PPP’s) performance. But Hinds uses his journalistic and political opportunity to convey his Trump-like untruths: (1) “…a judiciary which couldn’t move beyond `the traditional conservatism’ on electoral matters…the result was the awarding of a controversial election to the PPP…after fifteen months of fulsome defence of the PPP (Fenty) wonders aloud in his most recent column…”
“…opposing rigged elections is one thing; but supporting the installation of a government with a sordid history…” and so on.
My summary response? Look who’s talking about governments with “sordid histories”! Did not Forbes truncate his then vibrant WPA? Violently? Because I opposed blatant attempted electoral thievery which resulted in the legitimate, verifiable accession to office by the PPP, means that I should not question their missteps or alleged mischief now? (I have even more right, I feel.)
I appreciate that the PPP’s governance can be continuously open to question and scrutiny. But calls to the various opposition entities by Hinds, for rising up against the “disrespectful PPP must themselves be monitored. I live here all the time Dr David. Not in Arizona!
Yours faithfully,
Allan Arthur Fenty
