Dear Editor,
The Sunday Stabroek editorial of Sunday May 18, 2008 captioned ‘Normality?’ is opportunistic, anti-PNCR, against the interests of Guyanese and primarily of the impoverished people of the country and is a disservice to all of Guyana. It is a clever attempt on the part of Sunday Stabroek to bail the PPP/C out of the hot water it has consciously placed itself in and in doing so, it attempted to make a case against the PNCR for what it deemed as that party’s “irresponsible” behaviour.
In commenting on the editorial the first point I wish to make is that it seems to me that whenever strong action is taken by representatives of certain segments of people in the country the working class, the impoverished, the poor and the powerless and those deprived of justice, you will always hear objections raised in the society by the privileged few who are not affected at that particular time, in their attempts to put down the genuine aspirations of those who are disadvantaged. Some nonsense is always put forward by those who can easily ride the tide about the usefulness of parliament when they are fully aware that the representatives of people in parliament are frustrated by the recalcitrant behaviour of the PPP/C in that forum. Yet they continue to argue, when it suits their purpose to do so, that the struggle for the rights of the disadvantaged should be confined to the corridors of parliament.
However, when these same persons are affected in some way or the other, they will move hell and high water to ensure that they gain justice. The recent experience of SN in its struggle with the government for the return of advertisements is a case in point about the inadequacy of parliament as an institution for the resolution of problems in Guyana, and should have been instructive to the publisher of that paper and his editorial staff. They should recall that it took a lot of extra-parliamentary action including a picket demonstration of an international media conference outside of the conference centre, and international lobbing before government was moved to reinstitute the advertisements. The question that I wish to pose to SN is what do you hope to achieve in your attempts to discredit Corbin and the PNCR who are attempting to bring relief to the sufferers in Guyana? It is difficult to escape the feeling that this editorial is an attempt by SN to ingratiate itself with the rulers.
My second comment is that the single most important point about the editorial is that 90% of it was reserved for criticisms of the PNCR, Mr Corbin and the marches. I was at my wits end to find in the editorial similar strong criticisms of the PPP/C’s appalling conduct except for a mild criticism of the arrest of Corbin’s bodyguard. This cannot be construed as a balanced assessment of the situation in the country as it relates to the conduct of the opposition and government and it underscores the point that too often institutions like SN tend to hold the political opposition, in this case the PNCR, to a higher moral standard than they dare to hold the party in government to. How can that editorial justifiably say that Mr Corbin’s driver should not have been sent to advertise the march and his doing so was intended to force a response? Is the Sunday editor so far removed from the Caribbean reality that she is unaware of our political culture. It must be known that drivers employed by political parties and political party leaders are often members or supporters of the political parties which employ them and are frequently involved in party work.. If we accept that this is the case what then is so wrong with the driver of the leader of the parliamentary opposition announcing a party activity? In attempting to give this a sinister spin the editorial sought to justify the repressive behaviour of the police and government.
It is not surprising that SN’s historic positions of anti-PNCR, anti-African and hostility to opposition street protests have resurfaced once again. It should be noted that there have been other street protests when it was alleged that violations of the law took place in spite of that fact there were no editorials which denounced the protestors using the language contained in SN of Sunday, May 18. In the Sunday Stabroek’s opinion it is now irresponsible for the opposition to organize marches against the high cost of living, government excess and for better governance. The editorial attempt to cast aspersions on the reasons for the marches was unconvincing. The writer seemed to have forgotten that the PNCR had made its reasons known some time ago and those reasons were published in Stabroek News itself. In attempting to give the impression that confusion exists in the minds of the organizers of the marches when it was already advised about the reasons, raises the issue of the paper’s credibility.
Let me demonstrate the anti-African nature of the editorial. It is known that the PNCR marches to date have been in the main dominated by (90%) Africans. The editorial said, “Whatever the rationale behind the protest, whether justified or not, there was absolutely no excuse for the behaviour that the PNCR protestors displayed on the road on May 8, not simply ignoring the authorized route, but burning Mr Jagdeo’s effigy outside parliament. No matter what his shortcomings, there is simply no excuse in our present situation for that display of vulgarity.” What vulgarity is the editorial writer referring to? Is it about burning Jagdeo’s effigy? The publisher and editorial staff of SN are well aware that burning effigies of leaders of countries are normal political behaviour around the world. People do it all the time, whether in the UK, USA, Russia, Ukraine or wherever protests take place. People are also known to deviate from set routes. So why are these issues being made larger than they are and why is the analyst in the process attempting to humiliate a race of people in Guyana. The question which I am challenging SN to raise with government and the security forces (that is if it has the courage to do so) is – why is this PPP/C government which enjoyed the right to march and protest around the country including on Regent Street and in front of Parliament, under what it likes to refer to as the worst days of the PNC dictatorship, now denying its political opponents the right to do so? I took part in the march of May 8 and I want to say that as an African I am offended by the insensitive abuse in your editorial. This abuse underscored the observation of Sister Keane Gibson that there is a deliberate and well orchestrated attempt to criminalize and dehumanize Africans in Guyana thereby making it easy to justify their executions by the state. On the controversy, over the March route did SN attempt to contact the PNCR or Mr Corbin for their version of events? This requirement is the basis of objective journalism.
Finally, Africans should take heed of the observation in the editorial that relates to Carifesta and our cultural weakness for partying and sporting which is expected to guarantee our participation in the upcoming Carifesta in spite of the PNCR opposition to it. That observation clearly demonstrates that our oppressors plan on our weaknesses and exploit them for their political advantage and our oppression.
Yours faithfully,
Tacuma Ogunseye
Editor’s note
The main point of the editorial was that with the “face-off” between the two major parties the situation could deteriorate even if this might not be intended by either side, viz, “There are wild men and guns aplenty in this country, and a deteriorating political context gives them cover to move into action.” As evidence for the potential for a dangerous deterioration, the case of the channa bomb attack on the Ministry of Culture was cited. Furthermore, the leader did not hold the PNCR alone responsible for the situation, but also the PPP/C. It made reference in the first paragraph to that party’s contribution through its “appalling judgement,” and towards the end spelt out what that was. It was not only the arrest of Mr Corbin’s bodyguard (which was not a mild criticism as Mr Ogunseye suggests), but also the governing party’s “serious allegations about the opposition.” It went on to say: “If the governing party does not have evidence to charge people, it should not be making accusations.” It might be added that these columns have frequently criticized the ruling party for its inflammatory allegations. The editorial asked at the end if both parties – not just the PNCR – would “step back from the brink.”
Where the PNCR’s marches were concerned, the point of the editorial was a criticism of tactics –not because the argument was that they should be complaining in parliament, although that was mentioned in passing – but because (apart from the danger) this was not even appropriate timing. President Jagdeo was under pressure on all fronts, and the PNCR just had to “sit and wait” while the government “floundered.” As it is, instead of making the government the focal point of criticism, they had now made themselves the centerpiece and had allowed the governing party to mount their favourite “hobby horse.”
Mr Ogunseye is quite correct, of course, when he says that effigies of leaders have often been burnt elsewhere. However, the comment in this regard was intended in the context of raising the political temperature in a situation which had the potential to slide into a danger zone. As for limiting the route of the march, surely there is justification for not allowing protestors down Regent Street, at the very least, if not elsewhere. The problem is the recent history of protests there, and that this recent history was in everyone’s mind when some protestors broke away from the route on May 8, was apparent from the reactions of both shopkeepers and the public at the scene. If the purpose of the demonstrations is not to cause fear in citizens’ minds, but to make a point to the government, then the argument for devising a route which avoids Regent Street at a minimum, is clear.
The editorial had no implication about a “cultural weakness for partying and sporting.” In any case, Carifesta is about neither. The editorial did make reference to the lack of entertainment in this country – which happens to apply to everyone, incidentally – and the high standard of music and dance which we can expect. The point which was made was that once Carifesta was coming here, it was a regional festival and was not the issue on which to confront the government. If for example, it turned out to be a fiasco, the PNCR could ill afford the accusation that it had made it so.
Finally, the editorial did make reference to the “enormous frustration” of PNCR supporters “and no doubt others too” with the government, and also adverted to the fact that it seemed oblivious to its unpopularity in some quarters. However, it is the job of leaders to make rational decisions in the best interest of their parties.
