Using the political space
By Eusi Kwayana
Stabroek News
May 9, 2004
Political struggles everywhere have one thing in common. They are the work of human beings, through organisations, using political resources. In the USA the current presidential campaign is teaching me that in the view of the media the main resource is money. They tend to gauge the chances of a candidate by the amount of money the candidate can raise compared to the fund-raising performance of the rival candidate.
At least, the candidate's purse must be as good as his word.
In his sociological study Anatomy of Resistance in Guyana (1823-1966), Dr Maurice St Pierre names resistance resources, even in 1823, as including time and nearness to intellectual and physical energies.
Among our political resources in Guyana are persons, time, organisation and processes, such as parliament, constitutional provisions, courts, group empowerment, money and brain power and knowledge. To leave these resources, by withdrawal, to a ruling party is a slap in the face of those who struggled to establish them for greater human safety and empowerment.
The courts offer mixed results? Was it not a court that deemed a PPP victory null and void, declared Beast not guilty and restored public servants to their jobs? Of the hundreds of suspects executed by police, how many executioners were charged by private citizens, as the law allows?
Are arms then a political resource? Yes, they are, when all else fails. Is armed struggle an option? For some thought systems it is; for others it is not. Both make exceptions, however. I mention arms because I have seen responses to Dr Hinds which advise him that arms should always be an option and that even negotiations need to be influenced by the option of arms. There was another suggesting simply that Dr Hinds did not like revolt.
These responses come very close to saying that wherever a group of persons takes up arms that group is correct, as it is employing a political option, and that anyone who disagrees simply does not understand these things, or does not like revolt.
We know that many African nations won their independence during the second half of the 20th century through armed struggle. We know that violence was not an important factor in India's independence. We know that Karl Marx and Malcolm X allowed the use of violence and Martin Luther King did and Gandhi did not.
Readers can point to examples in various places to justify the use of violence, to justify the use of non-violence and to justify both violence and negotiations. All the experience teaches that there is no dogma or commandment.
Two of the main advocates of violence are on record as saying or hinting that the issue was one for common-sense decision in the time and place concerned and in the circumstances prevailing. And there is Gandhi's famous condition.
Marx (1870): Insurrection would be madness if peaceful agitation would more quickly and surely do the work;
Malcolm X: ...and by any means necessary;
Gandhi: killing and being killed is better than cowardice. Non-violence is the highest form of bravery.
Why does this article use arguments which can be used against an advocate of non-violence? The reason is that a topic should be argued so as to empower people who wish to think seriously about it. So although I am arguing against the use of violence in Guyana and several other places, I do not mind saying that in certain circumstances it could be an option.
But it is a far more complicated instrument than all other political resources of a non-violent or peaceful nature. It must be declared also that non-violence does not mean surrender; it does not mean, submission; it does not mean lack of militancy. It does not mean selling out. It does not mean cowardice. It does not mean 'business as usual.' Non-violence can mean very unusual business!
Consider also that 'collateral damage' from non-violent struggle is almost non-existent. Collateral damage from violent struggle cannot either be estimated in advance, or controlled to satisfaction.
Although a walk-out when a given minister rises can register resentment, a long stay home can be neglect of duty. How can the main opposition ignore debating the expenditure of taxpayers' billions by the government year after year, and then complain that its supporters are suffering, as they are, while being sitting ducks for the tax system.
The issue which this writer is prepared to argue, against the world if necessary, is this: was the resort to arms in Guyana after the 2001 election a wise, necessary or constructive decision by those concerned?
My argument is that the PNCR did not use and is not using its political resources and its resources of experience, intelligence, knowledge, training and diplomacy, law and economy to contest the government in the National Assembly. It should not even support armed action in its favour if it had not used up the political space given by the voters in an election it did not win after both major parties had rejected power-sharing.
Just remember!
With few exceptions, the people who have given their lives in the armed action and its complications are from the regular class of cannon fodder in the society. The Master Minds remained in their tents while the nameless ones were sent into battle.
Article 65 provides that subject to the Constitution, "Parliament may make laws for the peace, order and good government of Guyana."
The constitution does not leave MPs helpless. Though poorly paid, they are paid to use their lawful powers.
Under article 171, again subject to the Constitution and the Standing Orders, "any member of the Assembly, may introduce any Bill, or propose any motion for debate in, or may present any petition to, the Assembly and the same shall be debated and disposed of according to the rules of procedure of the Assembly."
A minister must "signify consent of the cabinet" in the case of a bill or motion if it imposes a new tax or increases taxation or imposes a charge on the Consolidated Fund.
The PNCR was heavily supported by the people at the 2001 elections with a reward of some 25 seats in the Assembly. How many motions have they moved between the 2001 elections and the end of 2003? For that period, the opposition moved no more than four motions, two of which came from the GAP-WPA member.
What proof have most members that they are in fact MPs? Tabling a motion or a question about one of Guyana's many problems is the least they can do.
Stubbornness of the government is no excuse. Not attending and not using the floor of the House yet receiving a salary is what I call business as usual. Both parties have played that game. Each government has wisely not imposed the sanctions allowed by the Standing Orders for non-attendance.
MP Debbie Backer moved about August 2001 a very responsible motion, and MP Raphael Trotman tabled an equally responsible set of questions. The equally irresponsible government did not bring forward these for debate, or give an answer for about a year (see my article 'Parliament in a coma').
When at last MP Backer''s motion was placed on the order paper, the PNC was in the middle of a boycott. It was not 'business as usual,' and Guyana lost a chance to face a leading issue before matters got out of hand.
The motion could have made a lot of sense. It set out the case against police misconduct without condemning the police force as a whole. MP Trotman's questions were by-passed by an alleged enquiry into the law books contract affair - an affair which would have revealed the interconnections between party supporters, cabinet and tender board.
The PPP's excuse for not calling parliament on private members' days is that there is no private members' business. Private members perhaps are awaiting private members' days in order to get into stride with motions and questions. What strategy!
The way to make a case for members' days is to move motions and table questions about the hundred-and-one-thousand issues annoying the public.
Has there been any petition from UG graduates reported to be shunned for employment? Has any PNCR member recommended such a petition? Do the PNCR members know that under article 192 any MP can request the Ombudsman to investigate a complaint involving a fault of administration? They have lawyers who can advise on the technicalities should the Ombudsman decline jurisdiction. Ask one lawyer to specialise in examination of that institution. Fight the battle on all available fronts.
Boycotting Parliament, as the PPP found from experience, is giving the government more freedom of action than it already has as a government. Weekly press conferences are not enough. The opposition must show its mettle and its value, its quality and superior policies - not only in self-contested press conferences, but in the floor of Parliament contending with the government members. This can then be interpreted at press conferences.
The PPP supporters have the satisfaction of seeing the members they elected performing on the national stage. The PNC supporters do not have this satisfaction. They have a right to it.
The PNC should have been present in Parliament, for example, to needle any suspect elected official, and to contest accusations. Whispering campaigns cannot take the place of open debates about national affairs. In the budget session it is laid down that the debate shall be about the economic and political affairs of the country. The PNCR has sacrificed all those opportunities so far since 2001.