Dear Editor,
My critique of state violence against citizens since Independence, including those who oppose the government has understandably enraged opinion on both sides of our ethno-political divide. The two opinions have one thing in common—they both contend that the state under their party’s watch was reacting to violence perpetrated against the state. That line is not new; these proponents may not realise that they are in fine company.
The plantocracy said that the 1763 Rebellion and the 1823 Revolt were violence against the state. In both instances, they proceeded to execute the ‘bad boys’ in gruesome fashion. Rodney, Koama, Waddell, Crum-Ewing and others were bad boys and girls like Accabre and Quamina and were executed. The colonial masters referred to the 1930s resistance, which struck the final blows for anglophone Caribbean independence, as violence against the state. The colonial state in Guyana suspended the constitution in 1953 and accused Burnham and Jagan of, among other things, fomenting violence against the state. The French colonials, in the wake of the Haitian Revolution, exacted over $30 billion from the Haitians for violence against the state.
People have risen up against state and government excesses from the time “Noah was in short pants.” That human right is enshrined in some constitutions. Some call it a God-given right. Others call it resistance. One may disagree with the method of resistance, but equating state violence with the resistance it engenders can only be put down to political posturing and/or maybe ignorance of the nature of states.
We are in the presence of cherry-picking which state violence to condemn—PPP diehards condemn PNC state violence and PNC diehards condemn PPP state violence. Both sides deny there was state violence under their party. That’s why Guyana’s politics is so messed up. But some of us have the satisfaction of knowing that we pushed back against government overreach and state violence under the PNC and the PPP and will do so again if this current government walks that road. In fact, we are not waiting for the state to strike; we are urging vigilance now. When you go through that experience of standing up to all state violence, your conscience is clear because you know that that scourge cuts across party and ethnicity.
Up till May 15, the WPA, to which I belong, did not have any control of the state—that is, they were not part of government. They now are. And if this government engages in violence against opponents and the citizenry at large, they, the WPA, would have to bear responsibility and they will have to contend with the voice of this member. In the meantime, I continue to appeal to government and the country as a whole to stand against state violence.
Let me end with this. We have to critique the tactics and approaches used by opposition forces in their resistance to government and state excesses over the years. I will have a lot to say when that time comes. But I will never excuse state violence by making the argument that the state resorted to violence because the opposition and the people rose up against their excesses.
Yours faithfully,
David Hinds
