‘Memory is everything Ms. Walton-Desir’

The coalition effort between the PNC and the Alliance for Change (AFC) appears to be at an end and the excessive media attention to which it gave rise has allowed the population a greater insight into notions of political propriety and helped to separate those who prioritise the holding of public office from those who are interested in the wellbeing of the Guyanese people.

The level of ‘victim blaming’ that Mr. Aubrey Norton has had to withstand for winning a free, open and transparent election within his party is unprecedented, even by the standards of Guyana’s turbulent political history. Victim blaming is the tendency to attribute the behaviour of others to their internal and personal characteristics while ignoring the external issues and forces that are playing a significant, and perhaps a decisive, role in the process.

It is commonly associated with violence against women where they are regularly accused of encouraging the perpetrator by wearing revealing clothes, making no attempt to fight back, etc. One of the common accusations Norton has had to face is that he is not living up to his historical image as a militant who can bring his supporters onto the streets. There are substantial historical and structural reasons why the street approach has not been sensible or necessary, but these were ignored, deliberately in some cases.

Norton has attempted to explain that for over two decades, PPP rule, which was directed at the suppression of African activisms had left too many Africans vulnerable to a rampant discriminatory regime. But importantly, the PPP’s support base is now also a minority, and it is not for love or ‘One Guyana’ but for this reason that the regime is expending a substantial amount of the funds that it is surreptitiously extracting from the African community (by, for example, over two decades of suppressing the income of public servants) to now win African votes!. Therefore, what is as important as street protest at this juncture is enhanced organisation and mobilisation.  Yet, as if context means nothing, the message coming from his foes is that he was doing next to nothing.

Consider that when the Coalition came to government in 2015 one of its first acts (that still reverberates today in the behaviour of Ms. Asha Kissoon and her PPP benefactors) was to covet the deputy speakership of the National Assembly amid protest from the PPP that in keeping with the Westminster tradition and practise in the ‘dark days’ of the Forbes Burnham’s autocracy, that position usually went to the official opposition. What could and did the PPP do? Apart from the usual Westminster type opposition prattle – nothing!

Unconcerned about the precedent their behaviour was creating, the Coalition government began to drag former PPP ministers before the courts in all manner of ways for sometimes petty or fabricated infractions. What could and did the PPP do? Again nothing!  One of the Coalition’s crowning miscalculations was its decision to retrench thousands of sugar worker, largely PPP supporters, at Christmas time, with the explanation that the sugar industry needed reform. What could and did the PPP do? Nothing!

The ineffectiveness of the PPP in opposition was being heard in their constituencies but not, as in Norton’s case, being vigorously expressed in the media, over which the PPP still had an overwhelming influence. Indeed, Charrandass Persaud, who crossed the floor and voted with the PPP claimed that his behaviour was motivated by the economic hardships being faced and expressed in the PPP’s traditional support base. Some would say that the PPP’s answer was to organise the non-confidence motion that brought down the Coalition government. I doubt it, but even if that was so, are we to depend on such subterfuge to acquire responsive democratic governance?

I hold that the Coalition government was brought down because it failed to deliver on its core manifesto promise to establish an inclusive national government within months of taking office. The signature approach of those who require regime change is to contact the opposition and this fortuitously released the PPP from the existing Westminster-type do nothing structural dilemma. The autocratic PPP regime with a one seat majority is now in the vulnerable position and so encourages and supports the usurpation of the deputy speakership by Ms. Asha Kissoon.

I only gave a few of the Coalition infractions that the PPP could have done nothing about to suggest that Mr. Norton’s behaviour was also similarly affected by the nature of the political system. And a few weeks ago, I commented on the V-pact, a recently small party’s message that adequately conceptualised and focused our attention on what it considered the problem with Guyanese politics and suggested how it may be overcome (VV: 18/05/2025)

But the approach that eschews context and tends to focus praise and blame on the individual is a dominant feature of Guyanese politics and dominates the core message of APNU+AFC MP Amanza Walton-Desir (SN: 19/06/2025). She is interested in a wider coalition, so the party has not yet settled down and it is as good a time as any to briefly consider its positionings.

Walton-Desir tells us that for ‘far too long, our politics has been reduced to a false choice, either or, between the two dominant parties that do not necessarily strive for performance, ideals or vision’ and this has ‘stifled real progress and has left too many Guyanese disillusioned, disenfranchised and voiceless.’

Her party ‘Forward Guyana’ is born out of a hunger for change and aims to present  ‘a real alternative [that is] rooted in clarity and in bold conviction’ committed to fighting ‘every day for the poor, the single mother, the frustrated youth, the undervalued teacher, the nurse, the doctor, the discouraged farmer and the discouraged local businessman. It is ‘a bridge to a better future, built not of concrete, but of courage, of conscience and collective will’.

‘Forward Guyana’ aims to move away from the politics of division, corruption and favouritism, towards unity, integrity and real results. … (It) pledges to operate with core values like service over status, courage and conscience, and transparency, with leadership defined by responsibility, not right… action… and putting the country first and before the party. … No one party or movement holds all the answers, … Unity cannot be based on expedience. It must be grounded in shared principles, coherent policies and a common vision for a just and inclusive Guyana.

Collaboration must be rooted in clear commitments to justice, service and long overdue transformation of our toxic political culture. …  The people of Guyana deserve more. They deserve a real choice. One where they can vote with their head and their heart and not just with her memories.’

Since the 1950s we have been hearing these kinds of platitudes from every political party that solicited our votes, and Guyana is as divided today as it ever was! V-Pact did what parties are supposed to do; attempt to locate the problem and suggest solutions.

After nearly 75 years of disappointments; what precisely are we voting with our heads and heart for?  As a matter of fact, there is no ‘just with memories!’  Memory is everything: it is what makes you a conscious human being able to manipulate the past, present and future to protect and develop yourself, your loved ones and community. It is what makes your head and heart operate as they do. ‘Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it.’