Your news article, ‘Mahaicony man arrested after threat at meeting with President,’ (January 11), is the most alarming example yet of the depths to which Guyana has sunk, where a private citizen can summon the courage to tell the President of Guyana to his face that if anyone, even the President, were to put foot on that citizen’s land with the intention of seizing it, then that citizen would take defensive action and shoot.
If this isn’t a wake-up call, I don’t know what else is needed, because what I have seen the misuse of guns has done to Guyana over the last decade alone, is definitely frightening compared to an era when guns on the streets of Guyana were unheard of. Moreover, what this Mahaicony man did is beyond bizarre, because in the Burnham-Hoyte eras when public anger and frustration had reached peak levels, no one dared threaten the President (whether Burnham or Hoyte) to his face.
Editor, I read the news article, and at first I didn’t know whether to laugh it off or to write this letter, but the more time I spent thinking about the man’s outburst the more I felt impelled to address the prevalence and easy use of guns in the hands of angry and frustrated persons in Guyana and, more importantly, the troubling change of the public’s perception of the presidency under Mr Bharrat Jagdeo at a time when the public’s temptation to challenge authority is greater now than before.
I recall during the wanton slaughter of innocent lives, a woman in a fit of anger and frustration called to CN Sharma’s call-in programme, allegedly threatened the President’s life if she lost any relative at the hands of demented criminals due the police negligence. That was the first time I ever read of such a bold threat, and the President, acting in his capacity of Information Minister, disregarded the Advisory Broadcast Committee’s recommendation, and personally suspended Sharma’s TV transmission licence for four months after Sharma allowed the threat to be rebroadcast a few times.
But this latest threat, as bizarre as it is, brings to the fore the ready access Guyanese have to guns, and even though a search of the man’s house for guns came up empty, it is the simple fact that he could make his threat that augments the contention that access to guns is frighteningly easy. On top of that, how can we not be dismayed by all the gun-related murders, many of which are obviously senseless? Government needs to have a strict and enforceable no-gun policy throughout the country, where no excuse will ever be acceptable for being caught by the police with an illegal gun.
The second part of my focus is on the presidency. I know there is a saying that even if we don’t like or respect a President, we at least should respect the office. But while this is true, it is also incumbent on the office-holder to publicly demonstrate at all times that he respects the office.
The problem I have noticed with the presidency is that it has devolved into an office for which members of the public have lost or are losing a great deal of respect and even trust because of ill-timed and ill-advised remarks and actions by the President.
While I do not condone publicly disrespecting the President or his office, I can understand why people will publicly disrespect both. Sometimes people become frustrated over government’s actions or inactions, and when that frustration finds no outlet or becomes bottled up, it may find an outlet in the form of anger.
And this is where the volcanic eruption of pent-up feelings can lead to trouble. I have no idea of the basis of the frustration or anger in the man who hurled his shoes at former President George W. Bush, but the mere act itself demonstrated to the world that the US presidency had somehow lost its lofty status. I certainly won’t compare Mr Bush with Mr Jagdeo, but the mere fact two Guyanese could have publicly threatened President Jagdeo is enough proof that the presidency has lost its lofty status in the eyes of some Guyanese.
It also does not help the public’s perception of the President if he says or does things that others may feel amounts to civil or criminal negligence, because no action can be taken against him since there is a clause in the constitution that protects him from civil or criminal proceedings for anything he says or does while in office. Because of this clause, originally intended for the late Forbes Burnham, who kept rigging elections to retain power and govern as he saw fit, it should occur to whoever is President to be mindful of their remarks and actions directed at private or ordinary citizens, because while the President can seek redress in a court against anyone, no one can seek redress against the President in a court. It is unfair, but it is the reality with which we have to live until another government amends that clause to make the playing field a bit more level for all Guyanese, regardless of status.
As for the Mahaicony man, I don’t know how he could show up at such a meeting with the President and not be in possession of a copy of the transport or deed for the land, and even if he did make a legitimate purchase, he should have a legitimate receipt with the name/signature of the seller. If he had none of these, then not only was he wrong, but wrong and strong.
If there is a lesson to be learned from this latest flare-up, then for the President, it should be 1) that he recognizes the prevalence of and easy access to guns in Guyana, 2) that he has a duty to his office to ensure the public trusts and respects it and the holder, and 3) that not all Guyanese can manage their frustration and anger at government. For the public, it should be 1) that they recognize the prevalence of guns and remember the first rule of the jungle must be applied in a society where humans can devolve into deadly animals: self preservation, 2) that they have a duty to help protect society by avoiding the need for a gun, and 3) that they find resourceful forums to help deal with frustration and anger stemming from economic hardship or even government bureaucracy and corruption.
Yours faithfully,
Emile Mervin
