NOTHING NEW HAS BEEN PLACED ON THE TABLE

Aug 22, 2012 Features / Columnists, Peeping Tom

---

A call for “all or nothing” brings back memories of another notorious demand made decades ago: “leader or nothing.”
That latter demand, made in 1955, came from the man after whom Linden was named. It led to the split of the PPP into two factions. Guyana has never been the same since.
The present demand for “all or nothing” will not be that defining. So far, its effects have been confined to the cancellation of the signing of a document between Region 10 and the government on what was agreed to in respect to Linden.
That signing represents something of a parody because the regional administration is part of the government. The council of the region may be an elected body, but local administration comes under the government and the signing of an agreement between the government and Region 10 amounts to the government signing an agreement with itself.
There are, of course, other parties to this agreement but this does not change the fact that the importance of the signing of the agreement is of mere symbolic value because for all intents and purposes the unrest in Linden is over.
The region has, however, tried to snatch a victory from the jaws of defeat. The protests which were given fuel by the terrible events of July 18 had run its course and created great destruction in its wake. It had, however, been effectively subdued following protracted political negotiations that began after the shooting to death of three civilians on July 18th.
These negotiations proved much more productive than the protests and were decisive in bringing to an end the unrest in the mining town.
Those behind the protests will eventually have to give account as to why they did not exhaust negotiations before taking protest action. The leaders will also have to explain why they were not in the frontlines when the three persons were killed.
Long before the protests, the issue that triggered the unrest had been discussed between the government and APNU. This took place during an attempt to reach agreement on the Budget. There were indications that the sides had reached an agreement on the issue.
In order to help Linden better cope with the impact of the gradual increase in tariffs over a period of time, certain economic initiatives would have been introduced.
After the talks broke down following the AFC’s incursions into the political turf of APNU, the government announced that despite the bad faith exhibited by the opposition and the severity of the Budget cuts, it would still honor its obligations that it made with APNU during the talks.
Amongst those obligations were the extension of the Women or Worth (WOW) small credit initiative to Linden and the reintroduction of the Linden Enterprise Network project. The government, in those talks also agreed to the liberalization of television in Linden.
As such, the present agreement between the region and the government has not cut any new ground. There is nothing, apart from the Commission of Inquiry, which has now been agreed to that was not already on the table.
The claim, therefore, that major achievements were made in the talks cannot withstand scrutiny. Whatever is to be inked was already on the table or would have been inevitable. Commitments had already been made in relation to economic projects and for the liberalization of television in Guyana. And the government was always committed to a probe of the incidents of July 18.
It was shockingly disappointing that instead of presenting its own developmental plan for Linden, the region and the combined opposition could only ask for a committee to examine developmental plans for Linden. In short, instead of a developmental plan, what was being proposed was a planning committee.
Up to Monday, there was a minor deadlock on the terms of reference for the Commission of Inquiry into the unrest. This deadlock is totally unnecessary.
The commissioners that have been chosen are all eminent individuals. They will appreciate that any inquiry into the unrest has, of necessity, to examine developments that preceded or gave rise to the unrest and developments that followed from the unrest.
Commissions of Inquiry are usually given wide latitude to examine the full range of ramifications of the issues which they are asked to inquire into. Therefore, there is no need for the negotiators on both sides to get stuck on specifics. The Commissioners on the Board of Inquiry, you can be sure, are not going to allow themselves to be limited by specific terms of reference.
The Commission of Inquiry does not need to be guided as to where it should go. It will know what to look at and what not to look at; and it will most likely look at everything.
As such, this most recent dispute is unnecessary. There is no need to specify, for example, that the commission should examine events of last week when there was a confrontation between the security services and protesters. This was all part of the chain of the unrest and it will be for the Commissioners to decide on the significance of examining this issue. They most likely will examine this development.
They will also most likely examine the destruction by fire of the Wismar Primary School and the Health Center in the area since these cannot be divorced from the unrest that was taking place for one month in Linden.
The deadlock of Monday last was therefore a case of mere polemics, as was the talk about “about all or nothing.”

---

---