Dear Editor,
I congratulate President Granger for announcing that the government would build a monument at the Parade Ground to properly memorialise the victims of the historic 1823 Demerara Revolt.
The president has done the right thing; he has listened and responded in the affirmative to the demand and the wishes of the representatives of the African Guyanese community—something that the previous government failed to do.
In the context of our fragile ethnic dynamics, President Granger must be commended for his political bravery—taking government action that directly favours its ethnic constituency, even if that action is just and necessary, opens the President and the government to charges of ethnic favouritism. The fact that the government has had to fend off charges of ethnic cleansing from the PPP makes the president’s announcement even more noteworthy.
The President’s announcement comes two weeks after he challenged African Guyanese at Cuffy250’s State of the African Guyanese Forum to come up with an action plan and also committed his government to actualising five points of the United Nations 10-point mandate to governments in recognition of the International Decade of Peoples of African Descent. For me, this decision to erect an 1823 monument at Parade Ground is a first down-payment on his promise at the Forum.
The announcement also vindicates the view that African Guyanese must make demands of the government in pursuit of policies and actions that directly and indirectly benefit their community. Even if the President had already made up his mind about the monument, the fact that the 1823 Coalition and other African leaders publicly questioned the president’s appearance at the monument erected by the PPP at the seawall and simultaneously lobbied him behind the scenes, would have played some role in the eventual outcome.
For me, this practice of pressuring the government, particularly one that benefited from your votes is a healthy development that can only expand our democratic space.
Some may say it is just a monument; the government has to deliver real benefits before it can be properly evaluated. My answer to that viewpoint is that what is important here is not simply the monument but the principle that is at play.It’s about government responding to the just demands of the masses and respecting the wishes of a constituency on a very sensitive historical and cultural matter. The PPP’s act of disregarding the wishes of the African Guyanese constituency as it related to the location of the monument was disrespectful and reflected the dominance mindset of that government.
President Granger is correcting that wrong.
Like others, I was concerned that the President was going to speak at the Seawall Monument. But in the end he used his appearance to correct the injustice that accompanied its erection at that location. In that regard, it is now incumbent on the African Guyanese leadership to remove the stigma attached to the monument.
As much as the PPP’s rationale for its actions in the African Guyanese community was grounded in bad intentions, we should not condemn every piece of infrastructure to the garbage heap; we have to turn them into spaces of and avenues for liberation.
Yours trully,
David Hinds
