It is difficult to objectively assess the motives of ‘Fine Man’ and his gang

Sep 06, 2008 Letters

---

Dear Editor,

The SN Editorial of August 31st, 2008, captioned “Rawlings Gang” has reopened the debate on whether the so-called ‘Fine Man’ gang was engaged in political struggle or crime.
The question that comes to mind is whether Rawlings and his comrades were part of a wider African Resistance. Individual respondents to this question will determine in their minds whether or not the actions of ‘Fine Man’ and his gang were political or were purely criminal.
An objective assessment of this matter is difficult for the following reasons:
 Most of the information on the group and its alleged activities originated from the Government and the state security forces.
 No member of the group was ever tried in the courts for the activities they were accused of; and, therefore, the “evidence” against them has not been subjected to judicial scrutiny.
 The exposure of a report in Kaieteur News, albeit dubious, that attributed to ‘Fine Man’ the acceptance of responsibility for the Lusignan massacre as an act of retaliation for the kidnapping of his girl friend and his unborn child.
 The absence of irrefutable evidence of the group acknowledging or denying responsibility for any of the actions that were laid at their door.
When the foregoing are removed from the equation, what we are left with is a view from one side of the political spectrum that is conditioned by information put out by the regime and its security forces with their questionable credibility.
Having made these initial observations, I will now attempt to address the issue of what is or is not political action. SN’s Editorial took the position that since the Rawlings group never “expounded on the ideology which inspired them, they were not the local equivalents of Shining Path or FARC guerillas, who use (or in the case of the former, used) criminal means to attain political ends. In this instance, the ends themselves were more criminal than any thing else.” For anyone to attempt to compare the Rawlings group or the broad African Resistance to the Shining Path or the FARC guerilla movement is to attempt to compare cheese with chalk. FARC and Shining Path is/were more developed and established movements. Using these groups as the standard to deny the political nature of the Rawlings group or the wider African Resistance is not helpful in understanding our reality. “Insurgent activities” have to be understood in their national contexts. Students who have studied the activities of liberation movements, guerilla movements or insurgent groups are aware that, very often, the information that is available in books and in the public domain is not the whole truth. It is therefore not unusual to find that when books are written, even when they are authored by representatives of these groups, the information accounting for the history and/or actions of these groups is very often the edited version.
The next point I wish to make is that insurgent groups often have an incubation period when they engage in actions without making a grand public declaration of intent – this declaration often comes much later. Is the SN Editor saying that, in instances where there are people who are organised and are engaged in armed resistance and have not publicly declared that that is the case, it in effect means that they are not acting politically?
Some social analysts and political commentators take the conventional position that, until a group has declared its political goals, its actions are not political. So when they engage in actions that violate the criminal code of the country, their actions are therefore criminal and not political. On the other hand, there are some who subscribe to the position that once a group of people, consciously organised for political reasons, carry out actions based on that conscious decision, they are acting politically, even if they make no public announcement of their intention. These are two contending views. I support the latter.
There is enough evidence (here I am using the word evidence, not in a legal sense, but in its general usage) in the public domain that supports the contention that ‘Fine Man’s group was the manifestation of a process that came to public awareness in 2002 with the Mash Day jail break escapees and their encampment in Buxton. Only those with short memories would fail to recall that Andrew Douglas went public with his and his comrades’ cause. It was Douglas who said that he was fighting for the liberation of Africans. A number of hand bills explaining that position were also distributed around Georgetown and its environs.
In my opinion, the issue of whether the actions of the ‘Fine Man gang were political or not depends to a large extent on the interpretation each of us will give to those actions.
The next issue before us is to decide whether all the things attributed to ‘Fine Man and his comrades were indeed done by them; and if so, whether all of their actions were for political objectives or personal revenge, as stated in the SN editorial. Here, again, we have only the call that was allegedly made by ‘Fine Man’ to Kaieteur News and the security forces’ ballistics evidence, the credibility of which has not been tested in a court of law. In the absence of irrefutable evidence which says that they were responsible, I am not willing to make a conclusive pronouncement on this issue.
Finally, I want to say that my assessment of the situation leads me to the position that Rawlings and his comrades were engaged in a political struggle. They were not criminals in the ordinary sense of the word, even though they may have committed crimes for both political and personal reasons. ‘Fine Man’ and his comrades were Resistance Fighters, and they had their strengths and weaknesses. After all, they were only human.

Tacuma Ogunseye

---

---