For its long-term viability and relevance the AFC cannot permanently rule out mass protests

Apr 16, 2010 Letters

---

Dear Editor:
While I have addressed in a letter to SN the Norman Browne-Sheila Holder discussion on the AFC’s decision to not use street protests and demonstrations as part of its overall political strategy against the PPP regime, I want to add that, on reading Kaieteur News columnist, Mr. Freddie Kissoon’s provocative piece, “Contextualizing mo fyaah/slo fyaah,” (Kaieteur News, April 14), I really don’t think the AFC can seriously rule out any sort of future street protest/demonstration.
And I also did not glean a permanent ban on street protests/demonstrations from Ms. Holder’s letter.
Ms. Holder merely alluded to the horrible experiences that emanated from the PNC-sponsored street protests and demonstrations in the 90s to show the negative effects of such an exercise within the existing violent political culture, and so timing will have to really be the critical basis of any future AFC decision in this regard.
What I must point out, however, is the amount of pressure being placed on the AFC to gin up its public activities since the main parliamentary opposition, the PNC, has obviously settled for waiting out the PPP on the shared governance issue, whereas the government is operating like a laden runaway freight train on a collision course with reality.
While I am tempted to say, on the one hand, that the AFC is barely over four years old and patience is essential as it builds; on the other hand, the mitigating circumstances on the ground in Guyana do demand the AFC adopts a different strategic approach to its political agenda, even if mass street protests and demonstrations are not immediately on the cards.
I wish to also point out that while some are understandably agitating for the AFC to do more, there are others who, much like the PPP and PNC, straight up don’t like the AFC, and they have and will express their disapproval in ways that make you think the AFC has been around as long as the PPP and PNC and done just as many bad things.
Criticisms and pressure may seem and sound unfair, given that the AFC is the new kid on the block compared to the PPP and PNC, which have over 100 between them, but I will chalk up the constructive and destructive criticisms of and pressure on the AFC to the potential impact the party can make on even its detractors. People will never find the time to talk good or bad about you if you are not making an impact or capable of making an impact.
When I first wrote expressing my support for the AFC before the 2006 election, it was not because I firmly believed the AFC will be a perfect organisation led by perfect people and would displace the PPP in government or displace the PNC as the main opposition. Well, actually, nothing is wrong with dreaming of either possibilities, but reality dictates that we understand the evolutionary process of political organisations usually takes time as the vision is developed and shared, and people start resonating with it.
Commonsense says that, as with any organisation, we must leave some room for possible setbacks and mistakes and not see these, if they occur, as signs of failure or reason to throw in the towel. Setbacks and mistakes should always be used as learning experiences leading to growth and maturity. Sometimes even the scars can serve to remind us of past missteps.
And speaking of learning from experiences that result in growth and maturity, I have to ask critics of the AFC to seriously answer the question as to whether the PPP and PNC, either independently or collectively, appeared to have learned anything from the mistakes of their past, resulting in their growth and maturity and to the benefit of the majority of their constituencies or the wider population.
I will never ask anyone to stop criticising the AFC for real or perceived mistakes, because criticisms can also help keep the party in check and on its toes. However, I will ask everyone to constructively criticise the PPP and PNC in light of what they have delivered unto us as the local political entities that sought to replace the British colonialists.
Is what we are experiencing the Guyana Dream? Are Guyanese really better off after 28 years of the PNC and almost 18 years of the PPP, respectively, in government? I know this is too broad or open ended a question to elicit a simple and narrow yes or no answer, because not everyone measures or evaluate progress in the same way. My question is really rooted in the ‘before versus after’ context of looking at Guyana (for those who were old enough to understand what Guyana was like before independence).
The question may also be expanded, for discussion purposes, to engage in a comparative analysis of the state of the country before and after 1992, but not necessarily in the context of what many are claiming are signs of progress with new buildings and plenty vehicles; rather, in the context of the purchasing power and living standard of ordinary working stiffs. Mind you, any comparison must also take into account that we have always been a nation known for an abundance of untapped natural resources, and for over five decades, we have always been under 800,000 in population, mostly because we keep hemorrhaging our people to other nations.
It ought to be obvious to all by now that while the PNC screwed up Guyana’s economy by engaging in an ill-advised socialist experiment under an authoritarian regime, the PPP took power in 1992 and continued the screwing up by not having a viable economic plan on the table (LCDS was a basic gamble that did not pay off), while engaging in some of the same selfish, authoritarian behaviours of its predecessor. In essence, the PPP has become the old PNC, while the PNC has become the old PPP, and since neither is eager to engage in genuine party reforms, neither can be counted on or trusted to reform the Government to make it effectively and efficiently deliver the goods to the people, and not just to some relatives, friends and associates.
Against this backdrop of the PPP and PNC as proven failures, the AFC was born to be the alternative to the PPP and PNC, and once the AFC has its ears to the ground and can read the political tea leaves, it should know what moves to make and when to take advantage of opportunities to advance the process of change that is part of its political agenda.
At this juncture of our nation’s history, if the AFC does rise to the challenge by creating opportunities or seizing opportunities, then we could remain stuck with the already proven failed alternatives. And as Mr. Kissoon sensibly noted, it certainly wouldn’t hurt the AFC’s image if leaders of the AFC are occasionally seen on the streets or in front of buildings with placards calling attention to issues affecting the people, not just for photo-ops, but to send messages that identify with and reflect the pains of the people. And it most certainly does not always have to be mass protests! Getting out there on the streets now and then might help avoiding the risk of the party being labeled an elitist and out-of-touch party.
Emile Mervin

---

---