Context, more especially historical context, can offer invaluable guidance on present situations. Very often, and conveniently by some, context is forgotten, thereby allowing for either an imposed outcome or a weakened capacity for prudent decision-making. Sometimes a simple lack of knowledge engenders vulnerability.
Why is this relevant? The answers would become clearer when some recent developments are revisited.
Immediately, the “war break”, the “CCJ cannot rule here”, and “dire and catastrophic consequences if the CCJ uphold the December 21 no-confidence motion and forces elections without new voters’ list” comments by senior Government functionaries come to mind. Throw in the “trouble in the country” comment in the context of no house-to-house registration, and the need to be informed on how the Constitution was breached on the appointment of the former GECOM Chairman by the two most senior Government officials, and the pattern becomes obvious.
Those utterances are from officials representing a Government that, from all appearances, has become very unpopular with the masses. Its believed focus on itself at the expense of the people has led to the current discontent. While the parliamentary no-confidence motion (NCM) delivered the general sentiments of dissatisfaction in the Government, subsequent actions by the administration can only be deemed as dismissive of the rule of law. Therein lies much cause for concern.
Based upon feedbacks, government’s actions to delay the implementation of constitutional requirements following the NCM created an environment of worry among many. That grew as time progressed, and may have reached the point of profound fear following the utterances noted.
For those who experienced the consequences of past political impasse and oppressive rule under the People’s National Congress (PNC), that fear may have been instinctive. For others, the non-adherence to the rule of law must be extremely worrisome, and surprising within the modern context.
On the point of instinctive fear, history offers that context. Words like “war break”, “catastrophic consequences”, and “trouble in the country”, to indicate possible actions seemingly premised on if things are not in its favour, would have driven fear into the minds of many Guyanese. That is aside from the apparent transgression into the realms of incitement, for which, other than the Opposition, a noticeable silence prevails; probably from either condoning it, or fear of speaking out.
Those with authentic recollection would be aware how fear saturated the mindsets of Guyanese during the PNC’s authoritative rule from 1964-1992. Over those years, that Government became very unpopular, but took drastic actions to stay in power. Rigging of elections became routine, despite vigorous opposition to such undemocratic manoeuvres. In the process of standing up for the rule of law to be respected, many were brutality beaten and incarcerated, with some paying the ultimate price with their lives.
While the political Opposition maintained pressure, including seeking international intervention, many Guyanese succumbed to the prevailing fear in an atmosphere in which survival was foremost, given the deprivation of basic food items and freedom. That was an extremely turbulent period in our history, but it unfortunately was not the end of politically engineered instability.
Out of Government, and in the Opposition, the PNC refused to accept the results of the 1997 elections. Street protests were mounted, and in the process, some businesses were set ablaze, people were robbed and beaten, the economy was stagnated, the hard-fought democracy was under assault, the country’s international image was tarnished, and the then PPPC’s term in Government was cut short from five to three years. Violent protests were repeated in 2001, with similar consequences, except for a term reduction.
What is clearly common from those incidents over the decades is the reported propensity of the PNC to create instability for its self-preservation in the seat of power, or to try to have it by means outside the democratic norms. In other words, consequence, including disregard for the Constitution, if that party does not have its way. That is the historical reality and context which seems to be raising its head in the present.
Given the seemingly dangerous utterances alluded to, disassociation and condemnation in the interest of the country and people were not farfetched expectations. Naivety would explain an absence of such thus far, which leaves condoning as the belief. That may not be an unfair conclusion, given that the President is yet to address those comments and other reportedly deplorable actions under his watch.
While there are reasonable and patriotic people in that party, their silence then and now, whether through fear or a reluctance to contradict senior party operatives, has also not gone unnoticed. Currently, democratic gains are being threatened, and the past actions of a party which now dominates the current Government seem to put the violence on a path to repeating itself if left unchecked.
That is the frightening prospect now, and in this technological age of real-time and independent reporting, all civic-minded organisations and citizens would need to safeguard those democratic gains and ensure the Constitution is upheld at all times. Failure to so do could not only lead to a rewinding of history, but a stripping of the value of the context herein, and the elevation of fear. There is still room for statesmanship in the context of the well-being of Guyana and Guyanese.
