Dear Editor,
While I understand Brother Eusi Kwayana’s argument that “The right to peaceful protest should not be denied” (08.02.05), , I wonder if he gave any thought to the ramifications of such a protest on the PPP and its government? Not that I am defending the government, but his letter did make me wonder why the government refused the protest permit on the Lusignan massacre and government’s continued failure to protect innocent Indian Guyanese from armed and dangerous thugs, and I could only think of two grounds, which I will share.
But when I say I understand Brother Eusi’s argument, I am referring to this basic right to peaceful protest that fits right in with the PPP regime’s mountain-top boast of `returning democracy’ to Guyana in 1992. In fact, this particular right is one that the PPP, during its 28 year banishment in the political wilderness, sought and fought for constantly from the PNC regime, so if there is any party or any people who should know the value of a people’s right to peaceful protest, it has to be the PPP and its leaders/members.
However, I am not convinced that the Lusignanians were seen by the PPP regime in the same way the PNC regime saw the opposition PPP. I believe that, in light of the volatile circumstances, the regime’s decision was made on two grounds: 1) to save itself a national, perhaps regional and international, embarrassment and, 2) to save the protesters from endangering themselves.
Before delving into the two, let me say given the controlling nature of the PPP and its creature, the Jagdeo regime, if neither was in control of organizing or staging the protests, then no one would be allowed such a coveted role and there would be no protests.
Let me now deal first with the decision that probably saved the protesters. Had government irresponsibly allowed such a mass protest of mostly Indians, whether marching along the east coast thoroughfare or assembling at some venue, these protesters could pretty much have become sitting ducks or easy pickings, thereby causing a volcanic-like eruption on the east coast with ripple effects throughout the country.
How many protest demonstrations in the last fifteen years haven’t started out peacefully only to turn violent and destructive in a nanosecond, all because unruly elements wedged themselves in the group and waited for the right moment to erupt?
So from a perspective of responsible government, given the level of anger-propelled energy invoked by the deadly attacks among Lusignanians, such a protest, though within people’s democratic rights, had to be carefully weighed against the greater risk of a potential attack by the same killers or even those sympathetic to the killers.
On the second point of government saving its face, even if the protesters were not set upon by criminal elements and they were allowed to march peacefully to any set destination, drawing sympathizers from neighbouring villages, and assuming there were speakers to address the angry masses, there was no way the heavily chastised PPP or its government would have been represented on any platform. This then would have been a major slap in the face of the PPP and its regime which traditionally depend on Indian Guyanese for support and votes at election time.
Moreover, a mass protest against criminal elements that have been attacking innocent Indian Guyanese since 1992 with impunity undoubtedly would have been used also to focus this ethnic group’s collective anger against the PPP regime for consistently failing to provide security or defend Indian Guyanese against violent and deadly attacks.
Indian Guyanese protesting the PPP regime’s inability to protect its ethnic support base against a handful of criminals is not the kind of image the PPP or its regime wants to reach the regional and international communities. So while a protest permit was desirable in accordance with rights inherent in a democracy, the denial is politically understandable. To my dear Brother Eusi, for the PPP, some things are lawful; most others are expedient.
Yours faithfully,
Emile Mervin
