For those without access to social media the statement issued by Brigadier Godfrey Bess on Friday must have been something of a puzzle, since no full context for it was given. He said he wished to remind citizens that irrespective of its ethnic composition the Joint Services was an “apolitical institution” which was guided by the Constitution and not by “any partisan values and interests.” As such it was mandated to “stand firm in the protection of the law and in the execution of its duties, in keeping with its constitutional responsibilities.”
He went on to exhort social activists and commentators in particular “to refrain from misleading and mischievous remarks which incite racial tensions …” Exactly who these ‘social activists’ were to whom he might have been referring did not become clear until yesterday, when Attorney General Anil Nandlall condemned statements made by Mr Tacuma Ogunseye of the WPA at a meeting in Buxton on Thursday night. His address had been recorded and was subsequently made available on the Facebook profile of KAMS TV.
In a country like this where ethnic tensions run high and political understandings are few, what Mr Ogunseye had to say would have caused a ripple of nervousness to course through the veins of all rational Guyanese, no matter their ethnicity. He told his audience that in the “present campaign” the WPA had some “clear objectives”, and that the first of these was “to get the African team in a state of battle readiness… the Afro-Guyanese police and soldiers… would stand with Afro-Guyanese in resisting mainly Indo-Guyanese supporting the PPP/C.”
But that was not all. Once Joint Services members of African ethnicity did this, he said, then there was a possibility of his party getting back into government. In Mr Ogunseye’s view removing the PPP from office would not necessarily be “hard and long”, as some people thought, because “no government could survive if they don’t have the support of the military and those who carry weapons for the state,” and the reality was that the majority of these were African Guyanese. “Once we organise our people and once we begin to fight we will ensure that our brothers and sisters in uniform will do the right thing,” he said.
For those who remembered let alone supported the WPA in its halcyon days these words must have been read in disbelief. The party’s origins had their foundation in fighting autocracy, promoting democracy and erasing ethnic divisions, and now, according to an executive member, it is proposing to install autocracy by force and start what is impliedly a race war. Whether it intends to do this on its own, or whether it has it in mind to co-opt the PNCR in this criminal enterprise was not made clear, since it has now left the party which represents the majority of African Guyanese.
In addition it might be mentioned that Mr Ogunseye is not very practical in other ways either. This is a small country with a tiny population, but given its oil-based economy it is of particular interest to the West. If there were any hint of a possible coup d’état, among other things sanctions might be brought to bear which would give the leading members and their families pause for thought. If a political overthrow might be less straightforward than the WPA appears to believe, what is more frightening is the fact that ethnic rancour is often easy to foment and always hard to stop.
Mr Ogunseye’s attitude to ethnic conflict was reflected in his comments about Buxton in the 2002-05 period. While he referred to police killings he made no reference to the numerous murders of Indians by the gunmen entrenched there. There are not so many people around now who have a direct remembrance of the events of the early sixties, but the recollections – and myths – in relation to that period are embedded in the institutional memories of the two major parties, particularly the PPP. No one familiar with those years would wish to return there, although without direct experience it is true that subsequent generations tend to lose the immediate anxiety of their forebears. That said, Buxton at the beginning of the millennium gave everyone a foretaste of what could potentially happen.
The justification Mr Ogunseye gives for this future of conflict which he wants visited on us, is the treatment and conditions of the African community. He described the situation as a matter of “political urgency”. He said that the PPP/C had used the police and the GDF in the past to “execute” Africans, and that in the present circumstances, “We have to act and we have to act quickly.”
What is the case is that the PPP has not changed its traditional ways. It may have abandoned the economic approach of the Marxist-Leninist school of thought, but it has not relinquished its habit of seeking control over every institution in the country. It believes too that if it appeals directly to the opposition constituency and hands out rehabilitated sports’ grounds and new community centres with abandon, it will eventually seduce those members into voting PPP/C.
It is a naïve belief; human groups do not think that way. It is true that the PNCR is constantly hammering away at the government for what it terms discrimination against Africans and inequality when relief of one form or another is being distributed, but without ever collecting evidence in a systematic fashion these remain generalisations that the government can ignore. The administration insists it wants equality for all ethnic groups, and while that may be the aim, what happens at a lower level when relief is being handed out, for example, may not correspond to what is intended at a higher level.
The PNCR has made other accusations such as those involving land and contracts, for instance, but other than in the odd case there has been no meticulous recording of alleged discrimination, which would be much more problematic for the government to evade than general assertions with no specifics.
But there is a more fundamental problem which Mr Ogunseye is certainly not concerned with, because it has more of a purely political than an ethnic character, and that is the fact that the government will not give the opposition any space to function either in Parliament or in local government, even where it is required in the Constitution. It presumably justifies this to itself following the events of 2020, when there was an attempt to deny the PPP/C its victory in the election of that year. In other words there is discrimination of a kind against the representatives whom the African constituency voted into office.
Once again the main opposition has not been efficient in recording and publicising this, although some things have come to notice, such as the issue regarding the appointment of a substantive chancellor and chief justice, various commissions, and the shenanigans over the PAC in Parliament as well as the refusal to send Bills to Select Committee. But the PAC excepted, the information has not been put in a coherent form for the public to digest. The party has complained about how the Speaker treats its motions, but again no details are supplied.
In local government the ruling party has either impeded or ignored decisions and requests emanating from opposition controlled councils, Georgetown being a notorious case in point, although the Region Four Council is also now coming to notice. What the government hopes to achieve by appointing REOs whose main task appears to be to run interference, is difficult to gauge. The point is that stymieing opposition representatives at any level percolates back into the constituency and feeds discontent because it appears like contempt for them and their choices. It is not a safe way to run a divided country like this.
The problem with APNU is that it has drained its energies on a hopeless challenge to an election which was perfectly free and fair, and as a consequence has not been representing its constituency with any competence. Invective, for example, is no substitute for argument. Since a methodical and well-planned approach to confronting government shortcomings has not been forthcoming, as such the party appears totally ineffectual. In this kind of vacuum the extremists such as Mr Ogunseye have room to manoeuvre.
The AG has said that Mr Ogunseye is not covered under the Freedom of Expression clause in the Constitution, and indeed he is not. He listed various offences of which he could be guilty including seditious libel and inciting riotous behaviour, among others. Whether he will be charged or not remains to be seen, but in the meantime it is the duty of the PNCR to repudiate what he said. Given their reputation and more especially in the light of what happened three years ago, they need to distance themselves from such racially hostile speech and incitement to violence. At the very least they should recognise the WPA appeal is being made to their own constituents. If they fail to speak now they will be seen as having surrendered that constituency to the leadership of irrational and dangerous forces over which they have no control.
