The political landscape in Guyana is heating up as two Afro-Guyanese leaders, Aubrey Norton and Nigel Hughes, vie for leadership and influence over the Afro-Guyanese community and beyond. Both leaders strive to secure a place at the helm in a country where ethnicity and political power have long been intertwined. However, the reality is stark: the Afro-Guyanese community, which they represent, remains a minority in the multicultural tapestry of Guyana, which poses a serious question—how can these leaders hope to gain the presidency with a minority voter base in a democratic society?
Aubrey Norton’s path to power may well follow in the footsteps of former President Forbes Burnham, guided by the advice of the aging PNC geriatric and stalwart Hamilton Green. Green has allegedly suggested that Norton should adopt the same electoral manipulation tactics that Burnham employed throughout his dictatorial reign to keep the majority of voters out of power. During a ceremony marking Burnham’s 101st birth anniversary, Green spoke openly about the PNC founder’s controversial legacy, with serious allegations of election rigging.
In fact, during the 1970s, a British television documentary uncovered clear evidence of Burnham’s manipulation tactics. The investigation exposed that Burnham’s regime had been inflating voter rolls by counting deceased Guyanese citizens residing in the UK and fictitious voters in London to secure votes for his PNC party. This documentary provided undeniable proof of Burnham’s orchestrated efforts to subvert the democratic process, a strategy he employed to maintain his grip on power through rigged elections.
Hamilton Green publicly revealed what his mentor, Forbes Burnham, had been doing during his authoritarian rule. Whether deliberately or accidentally, Green “let the cat out of the bag,” informing the Guyanese public that Burnham had been rigging election after election to remain in power illegally.
These rigging accusations persisted until 2020 when the PNC party faced scrutiny over its involvement in attempting to rig and influence the general election results. This led to the PNC party’s senior officials and several electoral officers facing legal proceedings in the Guyana court now. Rigging elections is part of Burnham’s only legacy left for Guyana’s PNC party, Afro-Guyanese voters, and the country.
The PNC cannot distance itself from the stigma of election rigging, as it is inextricably linked to this practice. Why? Its founder, Forbes Burnham, was the mastermind behind electoral manipulation. Given this legacy, what can we expect from Burnham’s political heirs?
In his address, Green 2024 remarked that if Burnham is accused of election rigging, it might be justified to protect the nation from what he described as harmful forces. He expressed this sentiment by stating, “And if, as I told one of the groups I met Friday morning, if they say he (Burnham) rigged elections, I say we should keep rigging to save us from these devils, these bastards, these demons that we have.”
Here, Geriatric Green is referring to Indo-Guyanese, Amerindians, Chinese, and Portuguese as the “bastards” who should be kept away from power. However, this group was and is the majority in the country.
In this statement, Green seems to argue that any electoral manipulation by Burnham was necessary to defend the country against perceived Indo-Guyanese threats. Hamilton Green, criticised for his divisive rhetoric, made inflammatory remarks seemingly targeting Indo-Guyanese, who represent the majority population in Guyana. Green, a staunch defender of the late President Linden Forbes Sampson Burnham, implied that election rigging was justified to counterbalance the Indo-Guyanese.
Green’s rhetoric appears to underscore a longstanding strategy of undermining democratic principles in Guyana to maintain political power in the face of a majority that values fairness and transparency in elections.
To be fair to the Afro-Guyanese community, many have been increasingly aligning themselves with the PPP party, with its secretary general, Dr. Bharrat Jagdeo, warmly welcoming them. Frustrated by being used as political pawns by leaders like Aubrey Norton and Nigel Hughes, Afro-Guyanese are seeking a more inclusive and forward-looking political home in the PPP party.
Now, Nigel Hughes must answer these two questions so that the public can judge his political stance on these matters.
Does the new Leader of AFC, Nigel Hughes, support Hamilton Green’s rhetoric by allegedly calling the Indo-Guyanese and other communities devils, bastards, and demons? Hughes needs to come forward or distance himself and his AFC party from Hamilton Green’s racist remark against the Indo-Guyanese population.
Can Nigel Hughes confirm whether his party, which was part of the PNC coalition when PNC cronies were rigging the 2020 general Election, condones such undemocratic behaviors?
Hughes needs to answer these two questions; if he does not, the voters will assume that he supports Hamilton Green’s racist remarks. The ball is in his court, and the voters will not be happy unless Hughes comes clean on these two issues.
Understanding Guyana’s Political Landscape: A Minority in Focus
The Afro-Guyanese community has always been a minority in Guyana, a fact that dates to the days of Forbes Burnham, the country’s former African leader who is remembered in South America as an “African dictator.”
Burnham’s regime was marked by election rigging and the strategic placement of Afro-Guyanese loyalists in crucial state positions such as the military, police, civil service, nursing, teachers, and firefighting sectors. He aimed to control the country by default, ensuring the state apparatus remained firmly in his Afro-Guyanese grip.
Burnham’s archaic and 1960s legacy today influences Aubrey Norton, the People’s National Congress Reform (PNC) leader. Norton recently refused to shake hands with President Irfan Ali, a democratically elected President of Guyana. Afro-Guyanese Norton added, “I do not shake hands with my oppressors.”
This move has been widely criticized by Afro-Guyanese intellectuals and the majority of the voters as an insult to the office of the President and the principles of democracy. Many argue that Norton’s mindset is still rooted in the divisive and racist politics of Forbes Burnham, as he has frequently accused Indo-Guyanese leaders like President Dr. Irfaan Ali and Dr. Bharrat Jagdeo of racism.
It is a joke and a laughing matter to know that Forbes Burnham’s PNC party, new African leader Norton, is calling the majority Indo-Guyanese oppressors and racists. The biggest irony is that Burnham was responsible for oppressing and chasing the majority of Indo-Guyanese, Chinese, and Portuguese to leave their beloved motherland, Guyana, for the USA, UK, and Canada.
Who was the oppressor, Norton? Do you think that the majority of Indo-Guyanese, Amerindians, Chinese, and Portuguese will buy your fake nonsense tirade about oppressors in the 21st century?
Norton should grow up and enter the real world of politics, where power and influence have shifted to the two most powerful countries, China and India, which are doing more for Africa’s development. Nearly 99.9% of African leaders do not even know who Aubrey Norton is or which country he is from.
In comparison, Dr. Irfaan Ali and Dr. Bharrat Jagdeo are known as world leaders on the continents of Africa, India, and China.
The leaders of Ghana and Nigeria, where Aubrey Norton and Nigel Hughes’s ancestors came from, would be appalled to know that an unknown Norton is calling Indians in Guyana racist. In those two countries, Indian and Chinese business entities are helping both economies, and Indian and Chinese communities are highly respected.
This raises the question—how can one cry racism when 90% of the army, teachers, police, civil service, fire brigade, and other state institutions are dominated by Afro-Guyanese? Is this a reflection of the very racism Norton accusing the majority of voters in Guyana?
As a matter of fact, this is a clear racism case against Indo-Guyanese, Amerindians, Chinese, and Portuguese by allocating 90% of these essential jobs to Afro-Guyanese only. Although Afro-Guyanese are a minority in Guyana.
We wonder what Norton and Hughes will do to correct these 90% jobs indirect reservation for Afro-Guyanese only and neglect the majority of the other communities who are not given a chance.
If Norton wants the attention of many voters, then he must first find a solution to rectify this discriminatory attention towards Indo-Guyanese, Amerindians, Chinese, and Portuguese.
A Struggle for Leadership for Afro-Guyanese votes between two African Leaders in Guyana.
Nigel Hughes, the newly appointed leader of the Alliance for Change (AFC), offers a different perspective on the future of Afro-Guyanese leadership. Unlike Norton, Hughes sees himself as an intellectual leader with legal experience, allegedly criticising Norton as a grassroots leader with limited scope. However, Hughes faces an uphill battle—his AFC party lacks a substantial voter base in Guyana, and many question the legitimacy and strength of his support.
Hughes’ position is ironic because he believes aligning with the PNC will give him leverage. However, in the complicated dynamics of coalition politics, the question remains: What can Hughes bring to the table that the PNC doesn’t already have? Norton and the PNC would be wise to ask Hughes for concrete evidence of his voter base—a question that Hughes may find challenging to answer.
The Futility of Racial Politics in a Multiracial Society
Norton and Hughes need to understand a crucial reality—Guyana is a multiracial society where the majority is not Afro-Guyanese. Indo-Guyanese, Amerindians, Portuguese, Chinese, Venezuelans, and other ethnic groups comprise most of the population. For far too long, Guyana’s politics have been marred by racial divisions. Burnham knew from the beginning that Indo-Guyanese were the majority in Guyana, which is why he resorted to election rigging and manipulation to maintain power. This legacy of undermining democracy still exists within the PNC today. “A leopard never changes its spots” is an analogy to describe the PNC party.
For Norton and Hughes, clinging to Burnham’s divisive tactics will only alienate potential allies and voters from other communities. Hughes’ idea that Indo-Guyanese voters would rally behind him is misguided; decades of mistrust and Burnham-era tactics have made such a scenario highly unlikely.
However, there are a few hundred Indian PNC/AFC cronies whom the PPP party has firmly rejected for being self-centered and selfish and merely seeking 15 minutes of fame in their otherwise miserable and unremarkable lives. These individuals, desperate for recognition in Guyana, have proven so insignificant that they can’t even convince five voters to support their misguided ideas. Politically, these Indian cronies are as irrelevant as a “dead Dodo” in the context of Guyanese politics.
Additionally, there are a few Afro-Guyanese who avoid visiting Guyana, fearing arrest upon arrival at the airport. These insignificant figures often play the race card to attack the PPP leadership. The world is watching, waiting for Afro-Guyanese to move beyond racial rhetoric in Guyana. Their constant use of the race card suggests they have little substance to contribute to the country’s economic development or the well-being of its citizens.
A Call for Democratic Leadership in Guyana
Unfortunately, the Afro-Guyanese community has not yet produced a democratic leader willing to embrace free and fair elections without reverting to the outdated playbook of the 1960s. As Guyana moves forward, it needs leaders who understand that the country is not an African nation but a South American society with a rich, multicultural heritage. Norton and Hughes must realize that their strategies must evolve beyond Burnham’s shadow to lead a unified Guyana.
Unity Over Division
Guyana is at a critical juncture, and its leaders must now choose between unity and division, progress and stagnation, democracy and dictatorship.
Aubrey Norton and Nigel Hughes face a pivotal decision—whether to perpetuate racial politics and election manipulation or embrace a new era of democratic leadership that represents all Guyanese people.
Ultimately, the citizens of Guyana will determine the country’s future. Norton and Hughes must recognize that their political fate lies in the hands of the voters, and they must convince the electorate of their policies if they have any. It is not the voters who need Aubrey Norton and Nigel Hughes; instead, they must earn the trust and support of the voters.
These two Afro-Guyanese leaders are stuck in a 1960s time capsule, clinging to outdated political tactics. It’s time someone shakes them awake and pulls them into the 21st century.