The Hong Kong protests

Sep 28, 2019 Editorial

“What’s at stake in the Hong Kong protests?”That was the question posed by the New York Times editorial of September 3. According to the Times, the goal of the Hong Kong protesters is not some abstract ideal of democracy, but the memory of a way of life they have no intention of letting Beijing take away; a way of life immersed in the many democratic, Western-style freedoms long lived.
Unlike Hong Kong, the so-called freedoms agitated for here are of a different timber. In Guyana, the memories are of the extraordinary freedoms experienced and exploited; the freedoms of self-enrichment to the poor man’s pains in the present; to inflict future burdens on taxpayers that must be paid.
The political freedoms lived under a system of selective regulation, or none, depending upon who is impacted.
The scandalous personal freedoms involved in private, out-of-court settlements to resolve glaring felonies to the severe disadvantages of the weak and handicapped; the bureaucratic freedoms to prey upon the feeble and helpless and to plunder the Treasury with one costly financial escapade following the other; the parade of events and participants, who observed no limits before. They obstinately object to any now.
In Hong Kong, the streets are taken, things boil over. The specter of communistic authoritarian rule is too much to stomach, the mere contemplation of its unsparing reach and potential for personal piercing brings shuddering.
It is enough to invest the time now, the energies today, if only to stave off the rush of controlling tides later. Ominous and sinister, they promise to be. Thus, the big banner of democracy is unfurled and waved. The history of mainland China is one to be feared.
The fears are different here. In Guyana, the simple calculation of the levying of fair taxes, of observing the law, of struggling for a clean police force, of adhering to environmental rules, and of something as mundane as parking, all bring great anxieties. Those are only some of the priorities that trigger deep passions and dogged resistance in this country.
Of course, all are conveniently and skillfully submerged under our own flags about constitution and elections and coalitions and local leadership vacillations. Each group and its well-connected people have a storied (or notorious) record of doing very well in the familiar Guyanese way of life that has served self only.
That is what is being fought over so fiercely. Having had a long and strong taste of what it is like to live in an unfettered free-for-all, Guyanese from across the divide want more of the same.
Revisiting the Orient, it is emphasized that “the protesters in Hong Kong are not the small band of pro-Western troublemakers…They are young people, a great many of them, who ardently don’t want to come further under the repressive rule of the Chinese Communists.” (New York TimesEditorial Board “Hong Kong’s challenge to Xi Jinping’s iron rule.” August 14).
Some of that rule has been lived here.
At different times, Guyanese had tastes of repressions from controlling state and tyrannical leadership: media curbs followed by media abuse, police misuse succeeded by police oppressions, bureaucratic coercion converted to bureaucratic corruption, economic subversion turned into economic blackmail. The list is frightening; engaged, insightful, and honest citizens should resist any returning to those days. Memories must not be convenient; the partisan only maintains the guises of focus on good governance, when there is interest in anything but what has harmed the greater welfare.
The problem is that mandatory national values and standards are nonexistent. Clashing groups march to their own priorities and follow flags that devastate the state. When examined closely, matters have always revolved around the intensely personal, as opposed to the heavily national. The latter inhibits the lawlessness that takes root; the national requires self-sacrifice.
Very few, especially among those clamoring about transparency and accountability, have any interest in contributing their share. It is not helpful to one’s own prosperity.