From the Diaspora…LINDEN TRAGEDY— WHO’S TO BLAME?

Jul 22, 2012 News

---

 

By Ralph Seeram

The death of the three men in Linden this week is most tragic, these men were husband, son, father, brother, uncle or nephew. Their deaths touch so many lives. The manner of their deaths makes it even more unbearable for their grieving families. They gave their lives, like so many around the world, for a cause they believed in.
The question being asked today is did they have to die for that cause, an increase in their electricity bills, could this tragedy have been averted in the first place?
There are going to very different versions of the events leading to the untimely death of these men, what though is even more regrettable is the opposition parties using the death of these men for “political mileage”, the blame game has already started, one must asked themselves if the opposition is truly saddened by their deaths, or do they see this as an opportunity to gain political points.
I am not going engage in any fancy language here, many would not want to say it, but it is my view that APNU and the AFC should take most if not all the blame for this tragedy.
The opposition has been “stoking the fires on this issue” for the last few months, leading up to the deadly confrontation, President Ramotar did not create this situation, the Guyana Police Force did not create this situation.
It was the opposition who have been “running from Georgetown to Linden” encouraging opposition to the electricity rates. I personally do not categorize it as an increase in rates, since the rates were already there for the rest of the country. It was not only that the Linden consumers were being subsidized, the subsidy came to an end and it was time for them to pay their bills like the rest of the country.
APNU and the AFC should have shown mature political leadership by telling their supporters that they had a good thing going for a while but it has come to an end. What is wrong with telling people you have to pay your bill just as how the rest of the country pays theirs? Instead of doing that, they took the coward way and “stoked the fires” for political purposes.
They began clouding the issue with other issues that had nothing to do with the increase in electricity rates. There are Guyanese in other economically depressed areas that have to pay their electricity bills. Don’t you think they are wondering why they must pay more than the people at Linden?
Suppose the situation was reversed and they start asking to be subsidized like the folks at Linden, where would that lead us to?
As I said, there are going to be various versions of what happened. The opposition claimed it was an attack on unarmed peaceful protesters. My idea of a peaceful protest is what Freddie, Lincoln and Benschop does; take a placard and pound the pavement protesting. That is my idea of a peaceful protest; blocking a main highway, stacking it with derelict vehicles, robbing and burning, throwing bottles, bricks and other missiles, ignoring lawful orders from the police hardly qualifies as a peaceful protest.
The police said that they read the proclamation to the protesters. The political operatives in the crowd must have surely known what that meant. After the first volley of tear gas, the protesters should have realized that the police were serious and should have withdrawn, it is simple as that.
Years ago as a reporter, a former commissioner of police told me, “Ralph, the policeman on the street, that constable is the person who makes the difference between democracy and anarchy”. So it is with the police on that fateful bridge on Wednesday last. They were the line between the rule of law and democracy, or hooliganism and anarchy.
If they were allowed to overrun the police at that point, what next? One has to determine where peaceful protest ends and riotous activity begins. The police felt they had to “hold their line”, whether they had to use live ammunition to do it, is for an impartial commission of inquiry to decide.
The public should not rush to judgment as quick as the opposition did in condemning the police action, one must remember that the police are also putting their lives on the line.
Policemen place their lives on the line to defend democracy, so it disturbs me when Clement Rohee (why Ramotar still has this idiot) is taking the cowardly way out by attempting to “throw the police under the bus” by inferring its them(police) not me. What a coward.
One must not undermine the efforts of the police to maintain law order, to maintain the rule of law, trying to blame the officer in charge could hurt the morale of the police force. If officers feel that they may face sanctions for making “split second decisions” to maintain law and order and prevent looting and burning, a detrimental decision could be made one way or the other.
Guess what, the next time the situation presents itself, they will turn a “blind eye” and let chaos reign. I have criticized the police for their corrupt traffic officers, but on this one I am not going to second guess the police. They are the ones on the ground; they are the ones facing the threats that were supported by the opposition.
Whether the level of force was met by the degree of threat, an inquiry will determine that.

There is an ironic twist to the protestations of APNU and its leader David Granger. Mr. Granger was a ranking officer in the army during the early seventies when supporters of the PPP in defending the ballot box on the Corentyne were shot and killed by the army ranks. Mr. Granger is on record as saying it was a law enforcement exercise, I wrote some time last year disagreeing with his version of that event, because I was a journalist in Berbice at the time covering that election and knew exactly how and why those men were killed.
Today the “shoe is on the other foot” and Mr. Granger cannot see it as a law enforcement issue. That’s because today he is a politician. Don’t get me wrong I have a lot of respect for the man.
Ralph Seeram can be reached at email: [email protected]

---

---