Political static
Editorial
Stabroek News
April 28, 2002
Even more than ususal (if that is possible) political static is drowning out any rational debate. The present interference on the party political frequencies began when Dr Luncheon appeared to have one of his off days the week before last, and said that the Government would be taking the initiative to involve civil society and the international community in calling for the “anti-police sentiments” of the PNC/R and some segments of the media to be deemed “terroristic.” The theme was then taken up by the President a few days later, leading to the conclusion that there was a PPP/C campaign underway directed against critics of police extra-judicial killings, especially those committed by the Target Special Squad (TSS).
That the campaign was misconceived was soon made evident to the administration by a statement emanating from Amnesty International, which described Dr Luncheon’s words as “inflammatory.” If the Government had paused rather longer for thought, it might have recalled that it was not just the PNC/R and some segments of the local media who had raised concerns about problems in the police force and more especially extra-judicial killings, but organizations like the Guyana Human Rights Association, and yes, the US State Department in its annual Human Rights Report. It might have recalled too, that one or two cases of alleged illegal killing by members of the force are currently under investigation by international agencies, who will not be diverted by any polemic issuing from party political sources.
The administration should now be experienced enough to understand that the thing the international community looks at first to decide whether there are any disturbing trends is statistics. And where extra-judicial killings are concerned, the statistics tell a story which contradicts that of the Government. One hundred and thirteen such deaths between 1993 and 2001 for a country with a population as minuscule as ours is bound to raise questions. Experienced investigators will also question the fact that so many young men in this country are (according to official releases) attacking groups of heavily armed policemen with a cutlass or at the most, a handgun. Common sense alone will tell them that that is simply not credible.
International agencies too, will not dismiss the evidence of believable witnesses to such killings with quite the alacrity of the administration. In particular, they will not dismiss the evidence of witnesses in the case of Mr Shaka Blair, and they will especially not dismiss the scientific evidence in that case. Both the Government pathologist and an independent pathologist who witnessessed Mr Blair’s autopsy, found no powder residue on his hands, which means quite simply that he did not fire a gun before he was shot.
One has to ask the question, therefore, as to what the reason is for this total irrationality in defending extra-judicial killings on the part of members of the party and the administration. In its latest formulation the defence (outlined by Mr Ramotar in today’s edition of the Mirror) is that the PNC/R is in open alliance with criminals, and that they are deliberately generating hatred of the police in order to protect the criminals. One can only come to the conclusion that the PPP/C has convinced itself that its own security and that of its constituents is dependent on allowing the TSS in particular a free hand. It is as if the party feels that it would be totally exposed if the TSS were disbanded.
One of the problems is that neither the PPP/C nor the PNC/R has recognized and acknowledged the genuine concerns of the other. The main concern of the administration and its constituency is security. Fears on the part of Indians for their safety are very well founded, and those fears obliterate any recognition of the legitimate concerns that the opposition may have. A sense of security is fundamental to any society, and if Indians feel that they are living in fear, they will inevitably take refuge in simple solutions, and in the belief that a group which is prepared to shoot bandits (whether or not in cold blood) is their best bet for protection. That the Government has bought into this belief seems clear.
It is the PNC’s own actions in the past which make it easy for accusations to be made about the connections between the party and criminal activity. Leaving aside the period when it was in government and when its tenure was in any case illegal, the PNC has - depending on the particular situation - used, or tolerated or found itself unable to control the criminal elements in its protests. The opposition party’s ambivalence towards the use of violence for political ends is to be unequivocally condemned, but the Government has to see things in perspective, and should not have to be told that Guyana is not Afghanistan, and the PNC/R is not al Qaeda. The PNC represents and articulates the concerns of 42 per cent of the electorate - concerns which have some validity.
Most recently, the leading opposition party has expressed a well-argued opinion on the dialogue, and at an earlier stage, on the parliamentary impasse. Without going into these questions let it just be said that in general the Government has largely resisted making the kind of concessions which would involve the curtailment of some of its power, partly (although not wholly) because it feels more secure the more control it has. The irony is, that the more control it has, the less secure in reality it will be, because 42 per cent of the electorate will be more frustrated than ever.
On the one hand African Guyanese feel marginalised because they have been excluded from political power by demographic arithmetic, and on the other Indians perceive themselves to be marginalised because they feel unsafe in the face of political violence. The possible exploratory solutions - and there is no absolute solution - lie in political accommodations; they do not lie in violent protests, and they do not lie in the barrel of a gun belonging to the TSS.
In the end, the PPP/C has to rethink its whole approach to the political impasse to accommodate an arrangement which would allow for genuine inclusiveness, and it has to be prepared to withdraw the carte blanche from the TSS. Sound policing work which will successfully catch bandits, a reformed court system which can effectively prosecute and convict them, and more flexible political structures which can allow for real opposition participation, will be far more conducive to overall security than what the Government is relying on at present. Furthermore, any more killings by the TSS in suspicious circumstances will only aggravate the political tensions intolerably. These killings have not caused any decrease in banditry, and they may well have actually contributed to the cycle of violence. In addition, another such shooting will bring the Government under even greater pressure from the international agencies who will not be persuaded by the argument that criticism of extra-judicial killing is nothing more than a hate campaign against the police.
For its part, the PNC/R has to completely eschew the use of political violence, and has to sit down and do some serious strategic thinking about how within the democratic framework it can create opportunities for returning to office.