The nation entered a sad and tragic period overnight on 18 July when the 87-year old MV Barima sank. This was manifested by an outpouring of mixed emotions – sorrow, hope, expectation, despair, sympathy, frustration, anger, compassion – manifestations of which have collectively ebbed and flowed as the days and weeks passed. Understandably, there have been calls from several quarters for explanation, accountability, culpability, responsibility; equally understandably, collective voices have been raised to express a range of views and opinions, as is the case in any functioning democracy.
I have had cause to explain elsewhere that there is no provision in the Guyana Constitution for a right to protest, be it peaceful of otherwise. What the constitution does provide for in Article 147 is the ‘freedom to demonstrate peacefully’; the word ‘protest’ does not appear anywhere.
I have also explained that there is no ‘right’ to demonstrate provided for in the constitution, rather it is a ‘freedom’. Those who make the effort to read the constitution as a whole, and not cherry-pick a phrase here and there, would realise that the constitutional provisions on rights are worded in the negative, stipulating for example that no person shall be deprived of his or her life, nor personal liberty, nor held in slavery; whereas the freedoms are generally introduced by the proviso ‘except with his or her own consent…’, clearly differentiating that these freedoms can be circumscribed in certain well-defined circumstances, unlike the more sacrosanct rights. Moreover, the marginal note for Article 147 is ‘Protection of freedom of assembly, association and demonstration’. Neither the words ‘right’ nor ‘protest’ are included.
It transpired that this tragic event coincided with the sporadic legislative timetable of the government, which had a number of Bills due for passage. The scheduling of a legislative sitting thus afforded the opposition the opportunity to table a number of members’ questions regarding the circumstances surrounding this unfortunate tragedy.
In the ensuing fallout to the maritime tragedy, public calls have been made for the subject ministers to be removed from office, hence the mantra “Edghill and Indar Must Go”. It is submitted that this is in keeping with our democratic credentials as a Westminster-type democracy, and passes the litmus test for both ministerial responsibility as well as peaceful demonstration, the latter as provided for in Article 147 of the Constitution, rather than protest action.
For the record, it is further submitted that five persons standing in a public place in silence and speaking through placards is, respectfully, not an activity which requires the permission of the police. There is nothing unlawful in such persons “assembling”, especially where there is no noisy instrument in use and no public thoroughfare is encumbered.
In the hours immediately preceding the two o’clock parliamentary sitting on 27 July, APNU assembled its party faithful in the hot midday sun, to repeat the mantra, “Edghill and Indar must go”. If by so doing the party thought for one second that such a display would move the needle of decision-making in any way, then it is sadly out of touch.
Having already taken advantage of the scheduled sitting of Parliament to table a number of questions relative to the tragedy, the better approach surely was to make their case inside the air-conditioned halls of the legislature. But, instead of its members rising to their feet to solicit answers from the government benches, the opposition resorted to a disruptive song-and-dance display of theatrics, portraying the kind of approach that was not in keeping with the solemnity of the occasion.
One is left to wonder what were the objectives that the opposition members had set themselves, going into that sitting of Parliament? Was not the better course of action for the LOO to take the floor and address the Assembly and read some of the questions that had been tabled into the record, before requesting that “Edghill and Indar” remove themselves voluntarily from the sitting, or alternatively, at the request of the Speaker? And if, as was likely, that did not happen, only then would they begin whatever public display and “conga line” they had planned to perform, in an attempt to disrupt the proceedings, and which in any event failed to achieve any of the opposition’s objectives?
In the end, the government got its way: the Bills were passed, the President’s statement on the tragedy was read into the record and the important opposition questions were not answered, as its members were busy “pampasetting” in the chamber: score the Government 3, Opposition 0.
In my estimation, by this public spectacle, the opposition forfeited a golden opportunity to hold the government to account by failing to represent the interests of the grieving families of passengers still missing, the survivors, their party supporters, the nation as a whole and indeed the Diaspora. Oh yes, and after all that bacchanal, “Edghill and Indar” still ain’t gone nowhere!
In fact the opposition continues to expose its inexperience and unfamiliarity with parliamentary practice. In circumstances where the government enjoys a seven-seat majority, would it not have made eminent sense, as a compromise solution in the interest of the nation, for the Whips on the two sides of the House to arrange for “Edghill and Indar” to absent themselves from the sitting on that day? In that way, all the drama could have been avoided, while still affording the government a comfortable five-seat majority to pass the Bills that were tabled.
By contrast, the opposition members having tabled questions, how could the call go out for “Edghill and Indar to go”, when to be sure, some of those questions would have required the presence of these same two government ministers to render account of what did or did not transpire!? What objectives had the opposition set itself?
This bizarre scenario was incredulously repeated the following Monday at the meeting of the Public Accounts Committee: the late arrival of Minister Edghill caused Mr. Ganesh Mahipaul, one of the more experienced members of the opposition, to interrupt proceedings and again request that “Edghill…go”. That such a request could still be made after repeated complaints from the opposition that the absence of government members was causing delays in the committee’s proceedings, in the light of a prolonged backlog of its work, clearly shows the “jumbled-up” thinking of the opposition members. Amazingly, the irony in this instance is that it is Mr. Mahipaul and his opposition colleague Ms. Juretha Fernandes, who, by their departure from the meeting, “went”, while “Edghill [did not] go”, thereby stymieing the important work of the body for a lack of quorum…in other words, the thing in reverse!
It was then WIN’s turn to take up the public exhortation of the mantra that “Edghill and Indar must go” in Linden and Melanie, in response to outreaches by Vice President Bharrat Jagdeo and President Irfaan Ali respectively: in fact the opposition appears oblivious to the fact that the government remains impervious to any such calls. Not to be outdone in Linden, Mr. Aubrey Norton, fresh from his New York trip, joined the ranks of the demonstrators in Linden, no doubt given the historical importance of the township to the party, as well as the profile that Mr. Sharma Solomon enjoys among its residents.
Instead of mobilising its representatives and supporters in Linden to form a delegation to meet with the Vice President to raise specific concerns affecting the township, including the democratic deficit of the delayed election of the Region 10 Council, WIN and APNU chose to lead another whole day, hot-sun exercise in futility, again chanting the mantra that “Edghill and Indar must go” – to quote Mr. Jagdeo, ‘you all had a long day’.
Activity in Linden that would normally fall outside the parameters of peaceful demonstration was evident when the barricades were pushed down and the opposition party faithful stormed the compound of the Watooka Guest House. Shades of this were repeated the next day in Melanie during the outreach of President Ali, and again the opposition eschewed the opportunity to mobilise its supporters from among residents and to raise legitimate concerns in the outreach. There were however reports of access to the meeting being restricted by the police at the barriers to identifiable residents of the immediate area.
In the current charged environment, it can be anticipated that further activity and mobilisation will take place both as the government continues its outreach and as the opposition continues its so-far unsuccessful campaign that “Edghill and Indar must go”. The latter needs to recalibrate its demands towards more realistic and achievable goals, while staying within the confines of the freedom to demonstrate peacefully in Article 147 of the constitution.
One such adjustment, which would provide an off-ramp for the government, would be to refine the demand for “Edghill and Indar to go”, to mean that the two ministers should instead be relieved of their responsibilities, but on a temporary basis say, for the duration of the COI, as opposed to outright dismissal. Rather than shouting this in the midday sun through a megaphone, it should already have been done civilly in a confidential letter jointly signed by the leaders of the three opposition parties in parliament. This request could be buttressed by an online petition soliciting the support of the electorate for this course of action which could be circulated to stakeholders and the international community.
Finally, if it has not as yet been done, it would be both timely and strategic for the government and opposition to identify respective focal points to serve as back channels to maintain communication and move the process of healing and dialogue along, while public statements to the party faithful continue to be made. Dialogue, compassion and compromise in this time of national crisis are paramount; in this regard, the private sector, civil society and the University all have a role to play in toning down the “noise” and maintaining civility, unity of purpose and a sense of national consciousness in this difficult period.
It would serve the nation a great deal of good if it is recognized that there is a fundamental difference between the government of this dear land of ours – the bailiwick of the ruling party – and the governance of our country, the latter of which requires a whole of society approach to nation-building. Neither the government nor the opposition has a premium on knowledge, much less all the answers that we seek as a nation: the sooner all our political leaders can come to this simple realisation, the better.
Discussion