Dear Editor,
Ever since the PPP/C came to power in 1992, every one of its Presidents experienced a period that ‘rocked’ their presidency. The ‘rocking’ was characterized by social unrest or political protest of varying degrees. ‘Rocking’ can be defined as a period when the citizenry in general, perceives government accountability and good governance as lacking; and, as a consequence, public anger is expressed in such a manner that government is forced to accede to demands, to reconsider, repair or reform.
‘Rockings’ usually take place due to a combination of socio-politico factors occasioned by circumstances whose genesis was due neither to the action or inaction of the sitting president. Moreover, in most cases, ‘rockings’ are engineered by opposition elements who, in their efforts to exploit the situation obtaining at the time, cast the state, government and ultimately the president, as responsible and culpable for what may have given rise to the ‘rocking.’
In the eyes of its opponents, no government enjoys the distinction of being flawless. Governments they claim, pursue policies that should be withdrawn or make administrative decisions that attract criticisms; but realistically, none of the perceived flaws are either a constitutional infraction or a criminal offence. It was either theatre or politics or both engineered by the opposition. In some cases, it may have been the perceived lack of ministerial oversight that brought about the unrest or protest. But here again, notwithstanding the fact that it was not the president who was the protagonist, nevertheless, it is the president who must face the brunt of attacks by the opposition.
The following examples of presidential ‘rocking’ should suffice. Opposition elements raised a hue and cry in October 1996 over a speech delivered by President Cheddi Jagan at an event held at the Travelodge Hotel in Toronto, Canada. Both protestors and sections of the media decontextualized Jagan’s speech falsely claiming it contained racial overtones. Eventually, Jagan issued a public apology.
Following Janet Jagan’s victory at the polls in December 1997, the opposition rejected the results and launched a number of street protests mainly in Georgetown. President Jagan was to later apologize for throwing away a Court Order. Then, following her speech in parliament in February 1998, the presidential vehicle in which she was traveling was stoned by protestors. Street protests and a fifty-seven day strike by public servants only compounded the unrest faced by the Janet Jagan presidency.
President Bharrat Jagdeo was confronted with a wave of anti-government street protests in July 2002. Demonstrators had forced their way into the presidential compound; their action was viewed as an “attack” and an attempt to assassinate President Jagdeo. Two men were killed while two others were charged with “encouraging others by words and conduct to unlawfully overtake and storm” the presidential complex.
Jagdeo was wrongly criticized by the opposition for the criminal rampage unleashed by the ‘Fineman Gang’ who were suspected of killing eleven residents in 2006 at Lusignan on the East Coast. Huge street demonstrations erupted mainly on the East Coast and West Berbice.
Following the 2011 elections, Donald Ramotar’s presidency was characterized by its minority representation in parliament and harsh budgetary constraints imposed on his government by an opposition-dominated parliament. In March 2012, Protests and confrontations with the police in Linden resulted in the shooting to death of three protestors at the Wismar/McKenzie bridge. More demonstrations followed. In November 2014, in keeping with Guyana’s constitutional provisions, President Ramotar decided to prorogue parliament in preparation for fresh elections. Street protests and marches took place in Georgetown. Compounding the situation were challenges that had arisen as regards the holding of local government elections.
President Irfaan Ali was confronted by street protests due to the killing of teenage cousins in September 2020 at West Berbice. Protests spread to the East Coast where protestors went on a rampage looting and destroying private property at market places. The death of an eleven-year old girl at a hotel at the East Bank of Essequibo and a controversy over the cause of death resulted in widespread street protests at East and West Demerara and in Georgetown. Several autopsies notwithstanding, the controversy entered the public domain as though it was an established fact and assumed a life of its own. The tragic loss of lives with the sinking of the MV BARIMA added another layer to the rounds of legacies apparently bequeathed by destiny to every sitting PPP/C president.
In the circumstances, if there is one consolation for President Ali it is that he is not alone in the pantheon of his erstwhile colleagues who, during their tenure passed the same way during their respective tenures. Whenever social unrest or protest erupted, at source, it had nothing to do with the President. Nevertheless, it was not uncommon for the President to be dragged into the matter nor to hear demands for him to take corrective action. Under such conditions, it would come as no surprise were the President to announce initiatives to assuage public outrage and to fend off attempts to disrupt the guardrails of democratic governance.
The main task of the President would be to keep government intact and to make every effort to reverse any sign showing any loss of influence or public confidence in the Presidency. Accountability and transparency and ending corruption are considered pillars of good governance. However, the three precepts are infectious. They are leveraged by opposition elements to justify social unrest and protest actions utilized to exploit a given situation and to embarrass the government of the day. Rather than looking backward, we should look forward to overcoming and grappling with challenges by engaging in constructive dialogue in search of solutions and avoid weaponizing issues just for the sake of protest actions.
The time has come to inoculate ourselves as a nation against the virus that makes it a practice where each and every sitting President must experience a ‘rocking.’ That everyone is equal before the law is inviolable. But the system must have the ability to distinguish between suspicion and evidence; between constitutional accountability and criminal accountability. Today, just as there are many who accuse, judge, and destroy with words, there many more who are willing to build something better.
Yours faithfully,
Clement J. Rohee
Discussion