Other than Parliament, where else can the AFC and PNC go to address parliamentary matters?

Dec 06, 2010 Letters

---

Dear Editor,
In response to the article, “Emile, you’re wrong,” (Kaieteur News, December 4), by columnist, Mr. Freddie Kissoon, I want to thank Mr. Kissoon for clarifying his first letter, “The sins of the PNC and AFC have caught up with them (November 30).
I was under the impression in his first letter that since the PPP majority controlled Parliament ensures only government’s business gets done, he merely wanted the AFC and PNC to simply cease showing up in Parliament, hence my letter, “The PNC and AFC are duty-bound to be a voice for their constituencies,” (Kaieteur News, December 2).
However, in direct response to my letter, he closed his follow-up column with these explicatory words: “The voices of the PNC and AFC have long been stifled in Parliament rendering the PNC and AFC dysfunctional. Those voices should have been elsewhere than Parliament a long time ago.”
The word ‘elsewhere’ also means in or to another place, so now that he has clarified that he was actually urging the AFC and PNC to stop addressing government/public issues in Parliament and start addressing these in some other venue or place, I think I understand his perspective a little better.
The only question I have for him is: Other than Parliament, where else can the AFC and PNC go to meaningfully address parliamentary issues and get desired results? Is it the streets?
If it is taking to the streets, then the truth is, after Mr. Robert Corbin took over the PNC, he called off those post-92 and post-97street protests and demonstrations, but retained direct secret talks held between Hoyte and the President.
Whether the post-Hoyte secret talks had anything to do with calling off the street protests is not known, just as it is not known what exactly those Jagdeo-Corbin secret talks were about.
But Mr. Corbin also repeatedly insisted that shared governance is the only route the PNC is focused on, so that puts to rest any hopes of the PNC participating in street protests.
On the other hand, the AFC, which was never invited to the secret Jagdeo-Corbin talks after its 2006 entry into Parliament, has made it clear that given the violent and destructive outcomes of several past PNC street protests, the party does not see itself organising any street protests as a means of publicly confronting the wrongs of the government, so that puts to rest any hopes of the AFC participating in street protests at this juncture.
In fact, the AFC seems settled on taking out full page political advertisements to help get its message out, so besides Parliament it has at least found another avenue through which to openly address government/public issues.
One such political advertisement was in a Trinidad newspaper during the Obama visit to Trinidad for a summit in April 2009, when President Bharrat Jagdeo was forced to make a nebulous promise at a press conference to have a Freedom of Information bill tabled on his return to Guyana, with a view to having it legislated by the end of 2009.
The ad in the Trinidad newspaper was roundly condemned by the PPP and the government for placing Guyana in a negative light; otherwise, it may be argued that none of the political advertisements extracted anything substantive from government.
Still, it may be too early to say how effective such political advertisements have been on local readers who are not accustomed to reading political advertisements in Guyana.
I close by cautioning Mr. Kissoon and all readers that street protests and demonstrations may very well be what the government is hoping for as a means to bring into reality its plans for 2011 and beyond.
Government, in the 2010 budget, announced plans to spend $37 million on procurement of water cannon to quell demonstrations, and while this was met with criticisms, Home Affairs Minister, Mr. Clement Rohee dismissed the criticisms by saying that it was better to use the water cannon than rubber bullets. (“Bids invited for supply of armoured water cannon truck,” SN, May 21, 2010).
Prior to this announcement, there was no known plan for street protests and demonstrations, so what kind of foresight did government possess at the time that compelled it to make such a troubling decision?
I don’t know about Mr. Kissoon, but that water cannon idea made me conjure up thoughts of orchestrated plans for social upheaval that could result in the invocation of a state of emergency, abrogation of Parliament, and rule by the decree of Executive Order.
Paranoia, someone said? Nah! After closely observing this government over the last 10 years, but especially its reliance on Roger Khan and the infamous Phantom Squad to secure itself in power, nothing is outside the realm of possibility.
So if there is ever going to be any street protest or demonstration, the organisers better have an end game or exit strategy that would both secure the safety of protestors and deny the regime any opportunity to go for its Plan B to remain in power beyond 2011 without an election.
Already, the government is said to have postponed Local Government Elections 12 times since 1994, and if denying Guyanese the right to LG elections for 14 years is not the same as rigging elections for 24 years, I don’t know what other sign we need to wake us up before we are rudely awaken by a full-fledged dictatorship, backed by regional comrades physically represented in the country.
Emile Mervin

---

---