The response by the Granger-led administration to the “chase them out” call was an embarrassing overreaction

May 09, 2019 Letters

---

 

DEAR EDITOR,

A video clip on Facebook, showing a visit by police ranks to the Office of the Leader of Opposition, was probably an occurrence that generations of the late 1980’s and 1990’s nor local millennials never saw in their living memory.
Any visit by police ranks, especially those from the Criminal Investigation Department (CID), to a former President’s office or residence in any part of the world, cannot be construed as a courtesy call on the office holder to sip and chat over a cup of coffee and some fruitcake. It is an encounter fraught with serious implications for democratic governance. In many countries it is called witch hunting.
Be that as it may, the fact of the matter is that such an occurrence is reminiscent of a past era many today may not have experienced.
This brings us to the question context.
Looking back in time appears to be anathema to some politicians and commentators of recent vintage. It is basically for two reasons they reject an analysis of current political events based on historical experience.
First, because they reject history as a scientific tool for comparative analysis. Secondly, were they to attempt such a deficient analysis, they would end up being challenged epistemologically.
In the end, they would be unable to provide a rational explanation for their position.
Bunched as they are in the league of ‘lazy thinkers’, these individuals tend to seek refuge in the claim that ‘looking back’ is to hark back into what they describe as ‘ancient history.’
To them, such an approach is unhelpful, since, as far as they are concerned, what matters most is to ‘look ahead’ not to look back.
For a country that gained its independence in 1966, 40 years ago can never be considered as ‘ancient history.’ Those who subscribe to this anti-history narrative, conveniently redact periods of Guyana’s historical record as a means to an end.
Self-styled political modernists who think that referring to what transpired in the past is ‘ancient history’ and an ‘exercise in futility,’ had better think again. That is, if they are capable of thinking at all.
Proponents of the false and fictional narrative that reduces to ‘ancient history,’ the horrific and humiliating experiences to which Guyanese were subjected during the Burnham era, should be considered proponents of a strategy to deny today’s young generation, exposure to the country’s political experiences of the 70’s and the 80’s.
To do otherwise would be considered politically immoral and irresponsible.
In any democracy or dictatorship, where the government of the day turns, unhesitatingly, the coercive arm of the state towards its political opponents, such an act by its very nature, is bound to have ominous political undertones characterized by political harassment, intimidation and victimization.
Worse yet, such an act is a stark reminder of the troubling times when the press was threatened as it is now, with a minister of government threatening legal action against the independent Stabroek News. On this occasion, freedom of the press being challenged on the eve of World Press Freedom Day.
That aside, what is ominous about the visit at 304 Church Street was the blatant misuse and abuse of law enforcement by the Executive, pushing the police to engage in a fishing expedition to advance a politically-motivated agenda.
It is rather ironical, if not mind-boggling to observe how police ranks, who once served faithfully, a previous democratically-elected government, would allow themselves to be inveigled into committing an act that was clearly distractive and vengeful.
To practitioners and students of public policy and governance, there are important lessons to be learnt from the Church street visitation. The visit was emblematic of a regime quixotic in its behaviour.
Prominent among those lessons is a national security ideology which, from all indications, has taken root within the statecraft practiced by the Granger-led coalition administration.
This is a frightening development which, if not exposed and challenged successfully, can place Guyana’s democracy on the line.
But even more alarming is the regime’s groundless fear of a plot, based on some conspiracy theory that, implicit in the call to “chase them out”, was intent to cause physical harm.
Consequently, the summoning of law enforcement to ‘investigate’ this ‘intent’ must be viewed as a reflection of a paranoia that obtains in the highest echelons of government.
It comes as no surprise that those in power who thrive on conspiracy theories, would interpret the “chase them out” call as mischief being hatched by the political opposition.
As far as they are concerned, the No Confidence Motion was a conspiracy to bring down the government; the current principled stand adopted by opposition Commissioners at GECOM is a conspiracy to frustrate the work of the Commission; exposing mounting scandals in government circles is a conspiracy to embarrass the government; while the demand for free and fair elections is a conspiracy to cast doubt on the electoral process.
In the circumstances, it would not be unreasonable to conclude that actions of the political opposition is viewed through a prism of paranoia by the APNU+AFC coalition administration.
The response by the Granger-led administration to the “chase them out” call was an embarrassing overreaction on their part, manifested in bungling political theatrics.
By calling on the Criminal Investigation Department of the Guyana Police Force to investigate a bee in somebody’s bonnet is to embrace the dark fantasies inherent in plots inspired by conspiracy theories.
Yours faithfully,
Clement J. Rohee
Former Minister of Foreign Affairs

---

---