Dear Editor,

The discussion initiated by Mr Norman Browne and enjoined by Ms Sheila Holder of the AFC, who defended her party’s position not to engage in street protests or demonstrations as part of its political strategy to take advantage of the frustration and anger of Guyanese at the government, is most welcome.

Judging from his past letters, Mr Browne appeared amenable to the birth and role of the AFC as the political alternative to the PPP and PNC, and, maybe sensing that the government has been getting away with a lot of wrongdoing for far too long, he ventured a suggestion that the AFC steps up its game and mobilize its supporters and others to take to the streets. Ms Holder, probably writing on behalf of the AFC, begged to differ on this strategy, which she elaborated on in her response.

I think both Mr Browne and Ms Holder have valid arguments given the vantage point from which each has seen the issue, and so it is extremely difficult to take a side here. What I would try to do here is to briefly crystallize the harsh facts and hard choices.

From Mr Browne’s perspective, street protests and demonstrations are the ideal exercises if the political conditions are right for these. It has been said that any labour union that does not have the right to use strike action as a weapon against management to the benefit of its members, is an impotent union, and the same principle holds true for any political party: it needs to recognize and exercise the right to street protests and demonstrations as a means of getting its message to the authorities, especially when parliamentary and other traditional means prove unsuccessful.

In developed democracies, mass protests are common. Some end peacefully, while others end in injuries, death and property destruction, but each protest/demonstration has its own unique set of circumstances that should be judged or assessed independent of the others if we are trying to determine what sort of impact we can expect in our own situation. We cannot simply say that others elsewhere have protested and demonstrated and that should automatically be our basis. While the reasons for protests and demonstrations are there in Guyana, we still have to carefully evaluate our own unique set of circumstances to determine whether the mood of the people favours such an activity. Are the people of Guyana in such a mood? If not, can the AFC or anyone else do anything to put them in such a mood?

Immediately after the PPP returned to power in 1992, the late Desmond Hoyte led the PNC on a series of street protests and demonstrations, which some felt created the atmosphere for criminal elements and political thugs to go on a rampage against innocent Indians and Indian-owned businesses in Georgetown and its environs. Yes, the protests were largely limited to the capital but there weren’t tens of thousands of protestors. There weren’t even PNC-organized protests in New Amsterdam, Bartica, Corriverton or Linden. And the worse the protests became the more turned off people became. Had Hoyte, after losing the election, conducted himself as the statesman he was during his days in the PNC regime, and had he been alive today, I believe he could have called for street protests and demonstrations and gotten a massive response, if only because of his history as a politician and leader and despite the PNC’s ignoble past.

Basically, therefore, the PNC greatly damaged the value of protests and demonstrations in the minds of Guyanese. This is not to say that before the PNC did this that there weren’t doubts about the PPP’s ability, while in opposition, to get massive responses to street protests and demonstrations. At the height of Forbes Burnham’s worst style of governance, the PPP appeared impotent in mobilizing frustrated and angry Guyanese – including those it considered its core constituents – to hit the streets in large numbers. So, other than a few unions on strike with members on streets with placards, I don’t recall Guyanese ever showing any serious interest in engaging in mass street protests and demonstrations.

From Ms Holder and the AFC’s perspective, apart from the need for a mood among the people, I don’t think it is a question of having the right to protest or even the reason to protest, but a question of having the responsible response required from protestors and demonstrators to ensure the exercise is not infiltrated by elements looking for an opportunity to execute death and destruction. Given the insecure and vindictive nature of the political culture in Guyana, elements can actually be planted by either or both of the two major parties to embarrass the AFC, which has so far distinguished itself as different from the PPP and PNC because it does not pander to a particular ethnic group for support and votes.

The AFC, it must be recalled, was born as the alternative to the PPP and PNC, both of which depend on their supposed ethnic constituencies and, consequently, on each other to remain viable. And despite their apparent differences, both the PPP and PNC will not hesitate to come together to defend their status quo against the efforts of the AFC to draw their supporters. Go back to the time when Messrs Raphael Trotman and Khemraj Ramjattan resigned from the PNC and PPP, respectively, but kept their seats as MPs. Recognizing the potential danger to their parties’ existence if MPs can resign their parties and still show up in Parliament, the leadership of the PPP and PNC moved swiftly together to pass legislation barring MPs from resigning their parties and still showing up in Parliament. Then revisit the manner in which the PPP and PNC treated with the AFC on the dispensing of money for election ‘scrutineering’ exercises and also the fact that the President and the PNC leader have held several discussions without inviting the AFC leader.

In a nutshell, the AFC is caught between a rock and a hard place, no matter what it does as it seeks to emerge as the political alternative to the PPP and PNC, and so while it may be politically expedient for it to capitalize on the    frustration and anger of the people against the government, it may be politically wise not to engage in protests and demonstrations if these can be infiltrated by enemies of the AFC to damage the AFC. The AFC’s biggest challenge, right now, is to continue impressing Guyanese that it is the alternative to the PPP and PNC, while openly engaging leaders of civil society with a view to developing a strong and visionary leadership base. Right now, the tree is rotten and the cup is porous, so the people of Guyana are left with the key to the door of their future.

Yours faithfully,
Emile Mervin