A low-blow to the already sensitive underbelly of democracy in Guyana

Oct 20, 2008 Letters

---

DEAR EDITOR,
The freight-train-like enactment of the contentious wire tapping law represents another low-blow to the already suffering underbelly of democracy in Guyana.

Lord Acton observed that absolute power will corrupt absolutely. Nothing is more corroborative of this claim than this act of the political state in Guyana shamelessly assuming a power unto itself that it refuses to concede to its bosses, the citizenry of Guyana. In a nutshell, they rushed through a law that allows them to spy upon us, but stonewalls a law that would allow us to scrutinize them.

More and more, we are being besieged with evidence that leaves little or no uncertainty about the hubris with which the Government of Guyana administers the affairs of our nation. And more and more, we are beginning to understand the arguments being put forth that there exist in Guyana, in its current political administrative configuration, all the basic ingredients of an elected dictatorship.

For how else can one explain the reluctance of the party in power to enact a Freedom of Information Act that allows the citizens to scrutinize the operations of the state, and the gung ho enthusiasm with which it champions legislation to provide itself with the legality and power to spy on the citizens of the nation?

In the United States of America today, in a nation where there are robust checks and balances beyond anything comparable or comprehensible in Guyana, there is great furor over allegations that the National Security Agency (NSA) routinely intercepted and listened in to the private phone calls of American citizens.

Revelations in this respect came to the attention of ABC News via former operators employed by the agency to monitor and intercept suspicious phone calls. The early evidence in the public space suggests that operators were listening in to the private conversations of US citizens, and even jocularly sharing this information amongst themselves.

The Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, (FISA), under which NSA is permitted to carry out warrantless gathering of information relevant to the security of the US, is supervised by a variety of checks and balances, including a special court of impartial jurists. This elaborate effort to ensure that electronic surveillance is not abused for partisan political and other purposes, however, still cannot insure against the kinds of breaches that are currently engaging the attention of the media, the public, and American lawmakers.

I shudder at the thought of what can, and no doubt will, occur in Guyana, where there are no such checks on the power of the political state.

The evidence that justice is not blind in Guyana, as it ought to be, and written into law to that effect, becomes manifestly apparent by cursory examination of events that have transpired in our nation over the past several years.

We rationalize the sentencing of an individual to one year in prison for possession of a single .22 bullet, but feign convenient nonchalance over the exhibition of a minister of the Guyana Government indiscriminately firing off his licensed weapon in public. There are no laws on the books that justify or excuse such an act. 

And if there are any such provisos in the Firearms Act that allow for that, the independent press would be performing an act of national education and service if they were to publish and explain this to the befuddled citizenry. 

An individual who is entrusted with legal ownership of a firearm for personal protection is prohibited from using it, except when they are under attack and cannot withdraw or defend themselves by any other means.

Given the fact that the minister in question was involved in an altercation with an unarmed person at the time, his firing off of his weapon in anger substantively resembles the offence of “discharging a loaded firearm with intent”.

There is little doubt, at least in my orderly way of thinking, and perhaps that of many other folks in and of Guyana, that had the minister been an ordinary citizen, that not only would he have been prosecuted, but every effort would have been made to keep him locked down while he was awaiting trial.

Justice in Guyana cannot be blind when an arms find in a house in one area of the nation would lead to immediate arrest and lock down, while in other areas the occupants found in the house at the time of the find would not even be taken into custody immediately by the police.

One would have thought that the law of constructive possession was there to deal with cases in which illegal property was found, not in actual possession of a suspect, but in a location over which such person or persons had exclusive control.

Justice cannot be blind in a nation where the state blatantly ignores its obligation to robustly ensure that every citizen, regardless of ethnic, political or other considerations, is evenly accorded the presumption of innocence, the right of due process, and absolute equality under the law.

Justice cannot be blind in a nation in which, if you live in certain parts of the country and complain about law enforcement abuses, your claims are accorded prima facie credibility, but if you live in other places they are ignored, or the official response collectively adorns the area with the tag of supporting criminality.

One would indeed have to be blind to assert that the administration of justice is blind in Guyana. And that is certainly a frightening arena for one side to have absolute power to invade the privacy of another. 

It should be an insult to the intelligence of any population, and an indication of gross insensitivity and disrespect, for a political state to enact a law to invade the privacy of its citizens, while it dallies around giving such citizenry the tools to supervise and scrutinize its administration and operations.

Under which clause in the wills and bequeaths of our fore-parents, whose blood, sweat and struggles paved the way for the individuals in power to be where they are today, does this ruling class as a collective  render itself immune from the very kind of scrutiny they wish to impose upon us?

Surely, this is a case of unprecedented hubris. Yes, I am in total agreement that every legal avenue must be explored and pursued in the effort to get a grip on crime and violence in Guyana.

The current state of affairs is adversarial to the wellbeing and quality of life of and for those occupying the base of the social and economic pyramid. 

But, quis custodiet ipsos custodies?  This is indeed a low-blow struck to the already sensitive underbelly of democracy in Guyana. But who is there to enforce the rules against such foul play?

Robin Williams

---

---