Dear Editor,
The protest on Thursday, May 8, 2008 in which thousands participated, was a peaceful exercise from the start to the end. The size of the crowd supporting the march must have sent shivers down the spines of the rulers who have become complacent and had begun to believe their own propaganda that Guyanese were not capable of standing up to their excesses. The organizers and the police officers in charge of the march should be commended for the restraint demonstrated by both sides in face of the unexpected controversy over a section of the route. However, instead of commendations, the rulers resorted to bullying and intimidation of the police and protestors. This attitude of the regime against the political opposition and their supporters can have serious consequences which should be avoided – the rulers seem to be trying to suppress the protest demonstrations before they become irreversible.
Objectively, the authorities’ response to the march raised the problems faced by peaceful forms of struggle to achieve meaningful political change in Guyana. Public demonstrations are legitimate forms of struggle which are open to citizens and guaranteed by the constitution once they are carried out within the parameters of the law. If this right to protest is to be of any use to citizens then the routes of the marches are just as important as the actual marches to successfully highlight and win the demands of the protesters. It is expected that in carrying out their constitutional functions the police will be politically impartial and that they will use their powers of discretion in relation to the routes requested in such a way as not to negatively affect the impact of the marches. The police should refrain from imposing routes that are intended to make the act of protesting meaningless.
If the police for the purpose of political expediency behave high-handedly and only grant permission to marches on routes that make the protests ineffective – we have a political situation which has to be resolved politically. It is no secret that the regime has forced the police to ban opposition marches from Regent Street, Robb Street in the vicinity of the ruling party headquarters and now, the square around parliament. It is ironic that this PPP/C government which likes to refer to itself as the most popular in Guyana’s political history and which benefited from protests conducted around Parliament and on Regent Street and a number of other places during the days of both the colonial rulers and the PNC regime are now going full speed ahead to deny today’s political opposition forces the right to be heard in the same places. Why should we accept these permanent bans by the PPP/C regime? How democratic are they when churches and other organizations are not subject to these bans? The leadership of the Guyana Police Force appears to be willing to carry out the regime’s vindictive and spiteful acts against the political opposition. I wish to reiterate that many months ago when I had called for a public debate on forms of struggle in Guyana that can bring about political change, I was hoping for an honest and spirited debate that would have examined in a practical way all the options both strategic and tactical. We need to look at institutional responses to particular forms of struggle, the political culture of the masses and the people’s reflexes to various forms of struggle. That debate would have also allowed us to examine the professionalism or lack thereof in the security forces and the political culture of the rulers and that of the opposition forces, as well as that of the civil society forces. Unfortunately, there has been no debate.
I believe that the following are some issues that we should have had consensus on if peaceful forms of struggle are to be the hallmark of our democracy: (1) The government and the security forces must be committed to upholding the people’s constitutional rights to street demonstration within the law; (2) As a nation we have to accept that the people have the right to change a government by mass demonstrations if the situation justifies doing so; and (3) that the rulers and the security forces are not above the law and are subject to lawful sanctions as citizens are for violations of the law. If the masses and the political opposition are expected to respect the law the same must apply to the security forces and the rulers – if not the chance of peaceful struggle as an effective political tool will be wishful thinking.
Minister of Home Affairs, Clement Rohee’s denial that instructions were given to officers to shoot at the protesters is welcome. Now that we have the Minister on record we have to make sure that his words become the reality. The Minister will help his and the government’s case if he publicly calls for the reinstatement of the officers who had been transferred from their Georgetown posts to the hinterland on the grounds that they had failed to take strong action against the May 8 PNCR protest march. In the face of growing public anger and resentment the regime seems to be unclear on how to deal with the two recently disciplined and transferred officers.
The nation is now speculating if after having lost the first round, Rohee, the government and the leaders of the police force are hell bent on forcing the nation into a deeper crisis. Finally, I want to use this opportunity to call on acting Commissioner of Police Henry Greene not to allow himself to be used by the government. The Constitution of Guyana guarantees citizens of the country the right to stage protest demonstrations providing they do so in a lawful and peaceful manner. So far they have been doing just that. Give the requested permissions to the organizers and let the courts decide if violations have taken place. You are doing the country a great disservice if you do anything else.
Yours faithfully,
Tacuma Ogunseye
