So Georgetown has struck back. Or more properly speaking, Georgetown and its environs have struck back by boycotting City Hall’s parking meters. A “middle-class” protest, sniffed Mr Clement Rohee in a letter to the editor last week, presumably expressing the view of the traditionalists in Freedom House with their class obsessions. But the body of opinion which has coalesced to oppose City Hall’s benighted meter project does in fact cross ‘class’ lines, since ‘small’ people like the vendors are suffering from a decline in business following their installation, while taxi drivers too, for obvious reasons, are seriously affected.
And then, in case the ideologues in Robb Street have not yet caught up with the times, they should be made aware that the ‘small man’ is also driving a car nowadays, paid for in instalments to one of the numerous importing agencies. He or she simply cannot afford the parking meter changes on top of the monthly repayments which have to be made. And even after adjustment, the parking meter rates are not cheap. Clearly Smart City Solutions (SCS), which has the contract for the meters, did not do their homework on the economic viability of the project, but that apart, City Hall with its fixation on making money just blithely assumed that the beleaguered citizens of the capital would pay any sum which was demanded.
But what must be making the government a little more uneasy than the Mayor and her cohorts, is the fact that the boycott which has been in operation for a week now, crosses party political lines as well as ethnic ones. In other words the city council has succeeded in doing what idealists have wanted for fifty years now: unifying the citizenry – or at least those members resident in the capital or who have cause to go there to work or conduct business. Whatever the figures, it is a hefty slice of Guyana’s population.
Of course, as opposed to the Old Guard in Robb Street, the more hip members of the PPP, headed by a leader who never misses a political trick, are attempting to annexe the movement, although one suspects their partisan efforts will not be rewarded. After all, how can their motives be taken at face value when Mr Jagdeo’s nominees for the Local Government Commission include Ms Carol Sooba, Mr Clinton Collymore and Mr Norman Whittaker?
Whatever else the Movement Against Parking Meters (MAPM) is, it is not the product of any political entity, or even an organization from civil society, and there is not a demagogue or public leader in sight. It is rather an impromptu movement, which partly has its origins in a very modern phenomenon: social media. The MAPM protest outside City Hall which was held on Friday, for example, brought together people, many of whom may not have known each other in the real world, but who were in contact in the virtual one. Along with more old fashioned methods of spreading the word, the movement managed to attract several hundred people from various walks of life. It was advertised as a silent, non-political protest, but of course City Hall with its modest band of counter-protestors managed to lower the tone of the occasion, and in the process make themselves look foolish.
If this boycott is kept up, and does not take on a political character (if it does, it will fizzle), other deeply felt resentments generated by a range of taxes in the budget that impact on everyone, including the government’s own supporters, could amalgamate with it and potentially have the administration facing a situation of more generalized discontent. A government is never advised to find itself in a position where it is defied on a number of fronts at the same time.
That the government seemed a little disquieted by what is happening was suggested by Minister Joseph Harmon’s remarks on Thursday when he told the media that the bylaws for the parking meters were still being vetted by the AG’s office, and that when that exercise was completed they would be presented to Cabinet for approval. It might be remarked that this is all very extraordinary, since the project was delayed earlier because the city authorities were waiting for approval from the Minister of Communities for the bylaws. When he did approve them, he said they had been vetted. Yet now we have been given to understand that they have not in fact been vetted, and although the parking meters are already in operation, the AG’s office strangely has raised no objection to that particular illegality.
One has the suspicion that the government might be trying to see if the situation can be redeemed at this late stage, but one hopes that they have not already missed the boat, unless the AG reverses himself in relation to the contract. When some time ago the deal between City Hall and SCS was referred to the Ministry of Finance and the AG for advice, the former made public its swingeing criticism of it. The latter, however, did not find it illegal despite the fact that local experts thought it probably was. As such, therefore, it went ahead, albeit with reduced rates being charged for parking and a reduction in the length of time the project would be in existence.
The AG Chambers did, however, refer to the terror clauses in the contract, which were quite scandalous, and to which no administrator in charge of a capital, however legally illiterate, should have acceded. This relates to the enormous amount of money to be paid by the municipality if it unilaterally terminated the agreement. At that time the view of the AG was: “This is not a genuine pre-estimate of the true loss to be suffered by the concessionaire, but rather a provision to put the city in terror of terminating the agreement.”
Since no one outside the charmed circle at City Hall ‒ plus councillors if they are prepared to take themselves to the Town Clerk’s office to read the contract (not copy it) ‒ has actually seen the said document, one must presume that the terror clauses are still there. At least, no one has said otherwise. If so, from a layperson’s point of view, it might only be possible for financial reasons, for the city council to do what so many are asking and rescind the agreement, undertake a feasibility study and send the project out to tender, if the contract were found to be illegal. If the terror clauses are not there, the situation, one presumes, might possibly be easier.
In terms of the reaction of City Hall to MAPM and anyone else who opposes the parking meter contract, this has been quite unfortunate. Mr Royston King has taken the line that they are in favour of “backwardness”, and want a “shanty town” as opposed to a “modern, globalized capital.” This is nonsense, of course, and in any case the citizens of Georgetown could reasonably comment that nothing is more backward than having a secret contract, not getting a pre-feasibility study done first, and transgressing the procurement laws of Guyana, among other things. It seems the Town Clerk has not heard about accountability and transparency, and that these are requirements in today’s “modern, globalized” world – even in municipalities.
One can only feel that the city authorities are doing themselves no credit with their misplaced insults to their opponents; that too is a backward habit in a modern context where discussion and consultation are needed. Most of their critics are not opposed to parking meters per se, simply to the modus operandi of the city authorities in relation to this matter. Instead of the path of vilification, therefore, they should be seeking the help of central government to see what avenues for discussion with the various groups might be open to them. They will achieve nothing with invective.
In addition, if the city officials think they might only be dealing with the businesspeople (an influential group in their own right), taxi drivers, vendors and car owners, they should think again. This whole project was executed in such a harum scarum fashion, that there are all kinds of groups who may emerge that they didn’t think about. They have already had to make a concession to the teachers, but if a letter in the Catholic Standard is anything to go by, there is at least one church – and there will be others as the range of the meters is extended – which is affected. Not all churches keep the same Sabbath, and then there are the mosques where Friday is the holy day. All of them, including the mandirs, have religious ceremonies from time to time on other days as well. Are the municipal authorities planning to confront the various religious groups as well in a belligerent fashion?
City Hall is probably taking a hostile stance to opponents and refusing discussion on the issue because it is gambling that the ban on parking meters will collapse once they are extended to unmetered areas where many car-owners currently park to avoid the charges in the centre. While no one can judge how resolute the individuals who are maintaining this boycott really are, those who govern the municipality would not be wise to bank on them caving in. And if they don’t, where does City Hall go from there?
