Dear Editor,
The recent controversy surrounding Dr. David Hinds has once again revealed the blatant double standards and selective outrage that plague Guyana’s political landscape. The deliberate attempt to make Hinds’ comments a national crisis, while ignoring actual racial incitement by high-ranking government officials and PPP-aligned figures, exposes the political weaponisation of morality.
At the center of this manufactured outrage is the demand for opposition leaders, Aubrey Norton and Nigel Hughes, to condemn Hinds for his critique of Black PPP supporters. The irony? The same individuals championing this call are also celebrating the PPP’s condemnation of a Black man for criticising other Black people.
So, what is the real issue here? If intra-racial critique is unacceptable, then why is the PPP, a party dominated by Indo-Guyanese leadership suddenly justified in policing how a Black man speaks about his own community? The answer is simple: this is not about principles. it’s about political control.
This is the same PPP that has a long history of racially divisive rhetoric, yet has never faced the same level of scrutiny or demands for condemnation.
Dr. Bharrat Jagdeo in 2019 declared at a rally in New York that there was an “assault on people of Indian origin” under the APNU+AFC government, an outright racial dog whistle designed to incite fear. The Ethnic Relations Commission (ERC) took no action, instead stating that his remarks merely “lacked decorum.”
Hon. Dr. Bharrat Jagdeo again at Babu Jaan called David Granger “a man with blood on his hands”, a statement that was clearly meant to stir ethnic and political tensions. Again, the ERC found no violation and moved on.
Mr. Kevon Lorrimer recently shared a racially charged video of Afro-Guyanese students fighting and edited it to include the PNC party logo, reinforcing a harmful stereotype linking violence to Afro-Guyanese communities. His wife later referred to Afro-Guyanese as “monkeys” on social media. Lorrimer faced no consequences, and the ERC remained silent.
If the PPP was serious about condemning racial division, where were the calls for government leaders to denounce these actions? Why was the ERC so silent on these blatant acts of racial incitement?
The ERC’s swift response to Hinds’ comments is a stark contrast to how it handled actual racially inflammatory statements made by PPP officials.
How is it that Hinds’ words became a crisis, yet PPP officials can spew inflammatory rhetoric with impunity? This isn’t about principle—it’s about who gets to control the narrative.
Shockingly, members of the opposition itself have joined the PPP in condemning Hinds. Jermaine Figueira, an opposition MP, was hailed as “courageous” for denouncing Hinds, while Aubrey Norton and Nigel Hughes were pressured to do the same.
Even Ruel Johnson, who postures as an intellectual voice of reason, has joined the chorus of demands for condemnation. Yet, he fails to recognise that his position contradicts itself. He is essentially demanding that Black leaders condemn a Black man for criticising other Black people, while celebrating the PPP for doing the exact same thing. He insists that intra-racial critique is dangerous, yet cheers on figures like Figueira and the PPP for engaging in it. He claims to stand for intellectual honesty, yet ignores how the ERC has ignored actual racial incitement from the PPP.
Walter Rodney warned about this intellectual dishonesty among Black elites, stating:
“The black educated man in the West Indies is as much a part of the system of oppression as the bank managers and the plantation overseers.”
Rodney understood that the system rewards those who maintain the status quo. This sudden urgency to condemn Hinds while ignoring the PPP’s long track record of racial incitement proves exactly that. While this debate over Hinds has consumed the nation, what has it overshadowed?
The spiraling cost of living, lack of government accountability in major contracts, growing concerns about electoral integrity, persistent racial and economic inequalities, Venezuela that has been testing Guyana’s resolve with its recent military actions and aggressive rhetoric regarding the Essequibo region. This is a direct national security concern, yet public discourse remains fixated on an internal political spat.
The government, opposition, and media should be prioritising discussions on defense readiness, diplomatic strategies, and national unity in the face of external aggression.
The powers that be masterfully weaponised this distraction to shift attention away from real governance issues. They have successfully turned Hinds’ remarks into a “national crisis” while avoiding scrutiny of their own racial rhetoric and policies.
If we are serious about racial unity and fair political discourse, we cannot apply different standards based on political convenience. If Hinds’ words warrant condemnation, so do Jagdeo’s racial dog whistles.
If the ERC is going to investigate Hinds, it must investigate PPP officials with the same urgency.
If intra-racial critique is unacceptable, then why is the PPP allowed to engage in it with applause? The double standards, selective outrage, and blatant hypocrisy must stop.
Can we move past the distractions and focus on what truly matters our sovereignty, the small man and holding EVERYONE ACCOUNTABLE regardless of party affiliation?
And please, for the love of God, let no one take my addition to this discussion as some sort of attack or critique of any particular individual or group. In this country, the moment you ask a question, challenge a narrative, or even attempt an ounce of independent thinking, you’re suddenly labeled anti-government or accused of being aligned with some political party. I am simply a fed-up Guyanese, tired of politicians—on all sides—playing in our faces.
Any references I make are based on the words of those who actually said them. If pointing out bias and inconsistencies is now considered a political stance, then that speaks volumes about the state of our discourse. Everything isn’t a critique—sometimes, it’s just an observation of reality.
Yours truly,
Nakisha Allen
