The current, intense power struggle between Aubrey Norton and Nigel Hughes, both vying for leadership of the Afro-Guyanese votes, is not just a political contest. It’s a significant event that underscores the deep-seated crisis within Guyana’s Afro-Guyanese political landscape, a crisis that demands immediate attention and resolution.
At its core, the conflict between Aubrey Norton and Nigel Hughes is not just about the ambitions of two African-Guyanese leaders. It’s a reflection of broader issues that have long plagued Afro-Guyanese politics. The weight of the past, particularly the influence of historical figures like the late Forbes Linden Burnham, is a significant factor in this struggle. Understanding this profound historical context is crucial for a deeper understanding of the current power struggle and its potential impact on the political landscape of Guyana.
Aubrey Norton, an African Guyanese, as the current leader of the PNC, is seen by many as the torchbearer of Burnham’s racist political ideology and appeal, particularly among the Afro-Guyanese community.
Aubrey Norton represents the continuity of Burnham’s racist political ideology, drawing from the historical and African community-based support that has been the foundation of the PNC for decades. His leadership resonates deeply with Afro-Guyanese voters, who see in him a link to the past in a country where politics is often divided along racial lines.
For Aubrey Norton and Nigel Hughes, understanding the composition of the voters in Guyana is not just important, but it’s of utmost strategic importance. The Afro-Guyanese voters are a minority compared to the Indo-Guyanese, Amerindians, mixed-race, Portuguese, and Chinese voters. This understanding is not just crucial; it’s a deciding factor in their own power struggle’s outcome, underscoring the strategic importance of voter composition in a multicultural society in Guyana.
Norton must understand that the Afro-Guyanese people will never win a general election without the support of the Indo-Guyanese voters. This is a fact and a reality in Guyanese politics unless Norton listens to his master, Geriatric Hamilton Green, who advocates that the PNC must rig all elections to keep the power in African hands, as did his master, Forbes Burnham, for all his Elections.
The PNC is obsessed with rigging elections. Even in 2015, the PNC’s cronies tried to rig the general election but were caught red-handed by the world community. David Granger had to pack up his bag and vacate the Presidential residence for the new democratically elected PPP President, Dr. Irfaan Ali.
Norton must remember the world will be watching him if his cronies dare again to rig the next general election in 2025. Such a move could have profound global implications, potentially altering the political landscape of Guyana.
Norton embodies the longstanding loyalty of dwindling and old African-Guyanese voters, who have supported his party for decades. This allegiance is deeply rooted in Guyana’s socio-political fabric, making the struggle between Norton and Hughes not just a political skirmish but a significant national issue among the Afro-Guyanese community.
Aubrey Norton represents the continuity of Burnham’s racist political ideology. This allegiance is not just a matter of tradition; it reflects the deep-seated connections between Norton and his African-Guyanese base, where historical legacies such as rigging elections and racism against the Indo-Guyanese play significant roles in forcing thousands of Indo-Guyanese, Chinese, and Portuguese to find political sanctuary in the UK, USA, and Canada. Today, the largest Guyanese diasporas in the USA, Canada, and the UK are Indo-Guyanese.
Nigel Hughes, an African-Guyanese lawyer who leads the AFC, positions himself as a modern alternative to Norton. However, Hughes’s leadership is not without its challenges. His political credibility is marred by the party’s past affiliations with figures like Khemraj Ramjattan and Moses Nagamootoo, the two worst politicians Guyana had the misfortune to have. To the joy of many, both have since faded away from the political scene.
These associations, coupled with the unfulfilled promises made to Indo-Guyanese voters during PNC/AFC time in power, have left a lasting impression of unreliability and disappointment. As a result, Hughes’s attempts to present himself as a viable alternative to Norton are viewed with skepticism by many within the Afro-Guyanese community.
The Indo-Guyanese have not forgotten the pledges and promises made by David Granger, Nagamootoo, and Ramjattan in the 2015 general election and their betrayal. Instead of increasing their salaries, they destroyed many jobs in the rice and sugar industries.
Nikita Khrushchev, the former leader of the USSR, said a quotation about making promises that directly applies to David Granger, Nagamootoo, and Ramjattan.
“Politicians are the same all over. They promise to build bridges even when there are no rivers.”
Hughes’s personal rivalry with Norton adds another layer of intensity to this complex political landscape. His challenge to Norton’s leadership is not just about gaining control of the party but also about proving himself as an intellectual and credible African leader who can attract and retain support from a key demographic within Guyana’s electorate. However, Hughes faces an uphill battle in this regard. Norton, with his deep-rooted grassroots connections within the Afro-Guyanese community, is seen as the more established figure, making it difficult for Hughes to gain a foothold.
Nigel Hughes has allegedly actively challenged Norton’s African-descent leadership. Hughes’s challenge is not just about gaining the leadership of the Afro-Guyanese but also about proving himself as a better intellectual and viable alternative to Norton, who many view as a more established figure.
The recent history of the Granger government, where Ramjattan and Nagamootoo claimed to have the support of over 50,000 voters, further complicates the situation. This claim was intended to impress David Granger, but many view it as a strategic fabrication.
Granger’s victory, with 207,201 votes in the 2015 general election, was achieved despite the exaggerated claim that 50,000 AFC votes were included in the total cast votes. If AFC indeed inflated this claim, it would mean that the actual Afro-Guyanese support for the PNC was significantly less (around 157,201 votes), undermining the perceived strength of the PNC’s base.
One of the central issues in this power struggle is the legitimacy of AFC’s voter base. Hughes’s thinks to have a significant voter base has been met with skepticism by many political observers. The credibility of this claim is under intense scrutiny, with doubts about whether such a voter base truly exists or if it is a strategic exaggeration.
AFC does not have a voter base in the country, so it has been riding and hanging on PNC’s coattails for the last two general elections. AFC is a party that benefits from someone else’s success. If Aubrey Norton were a creative politician, he would have sussed this out instead of falsely accusing President Dr. Irfaan Ali and Vice-President Dr. Bharrat Jagdeo of racism. This is precisely why Nigel Hughes thinks he would be a better leader representing the Afro-Guyanese voters than Aubrey Norton’s 1960s obnoxious Burnham policies, which have no place in today’s Guyana.
With his broader and historically grounded support, Norton must question the authenticity of Hughes’s voter base claims, further highlighting the disparity in their respective political standings.
Hughes’s appeal to Indo-Guyanese voters, influenced by figures like Nagamootoo and Ramjattan, is another point of contention. The Indo-Guyanese community is known for its political discernment and is not easily swayed by promises or affiliations that do not align with their interests.
Previous AFC leaders’ failure to deliver on promises to Indo-Guyanese workers, such as rice farmers and sugar workers, has created a climate of skepticism and distrust. The broken promises of the past have left Indo-Guyanese voters and other voters wary of AFC political figures who fail to demonstrate genuine commitment and reliability.
For Hughes, the challenge is even more significant. He must establish a transparent and credible political identity amidst the shadows of past affiliations and questionable claims. His ability to convince the electorate of his legitimacy and vision will be crucial in shaping his political future. The scrutiny of his voter base and the perceived lack of a solid foundation for his claims will test his capacity to mobilize support effectively.
In contrast, the PPP Party has become a broad-church party encompassing the entire Guyanese community, whereas the PNC is still using racism as its central policy. Furthermore, nobody knows what Nigel Hughes stands for. Aubrey Norton must question the grassroots supporters of the AFC. If Norton did it, he would find that the AFC has roughly a handful of voters in the country, giving AFC no seat in Parliament.
The broader issue is the perception of these leaders within the Guyanese electorate. The PNC’s reliance on historical racial politics and rigging elections and the AFC’s questionable claims of a robust voter base both contribute to a sense of disillusionment and distrust among voters.
However, there’s a more significant issue at play. The Guyanese community, aware of the political shenanigans, sees through the ambitions of both African leaders. Norton and Hughes share the goal of having an Afro-Guyanese President at any cost without the support of the Indo-Guyanese voters. The other alternative to Aubrey Norton is to follow and listen to Hamilton Green’s advice by rigging elections as Forbes Burnham did during his dictatorial reign in Guyana.
As Guyana looks toward the next general election in 2025, Norton and Hughes must remember that Guyana is not an African state located on the continent of Africa but in South America. It is a multicultural country where Afro-Guyanese voters are a minority.
PNC cannot win general elections unless it gets Indian votes in Guyana. This is the reality of Guyanese politics, and Norton should remember that Afro-Guyanese alone cannot win any general elections.
Finally, Nigel Hughes, lacking a nationwide voter base, is falsely assuming he has the support of Afro-Guyanese voters. However, these voters understand his claims are baseless. They recognize that Hughes is merely building castles in the air and that the AFC lacks the electoral strength to secure even a single seat in Parliament.