Drawing the Line

Drawing the Line
Editorial
Guyana Chronicle
April 17, 2003

*Related Links:*	Articles on PPP
Letters Menu	Archival Menu

Street protests are not new to Guyana. Like so many others it is said to be a part of our colonial heritage. Street protests are an effective means of expressing community concern and social dissatisfaction. Over the years, this form of protest has manifested itself in street marches, picketing and the occasional vigil. In the past, such actions have served to publicise community concerns, galvanise public support for remedial action and garner extensive coverage in the media. Street protests have served us well in the anti-colonial struggle and later, when confronted by the post independence dictatorship, it was once again an effective and popular liberalising tool. As a consequence street protests have come to enjoy considerable legitimacy in our society.

Within recent times totally ungovernable crowds engaged in a variety of unlawful acts have characterised street protests. As a consequence, the state has sensibly become concerned with the use of such protests as an increasingly popular means of attracting priority attention. That this distressing spectre has gained currency is manifest in the current Linden protests. Here a certain group of persons seem bent on making their point irrespective of the economic inconvenience caused to others. This new etiquette threatens the economic viability of the forest and mining industries and has already occasioned the loss of employment to several hundreds of persons drawn, ironically, from the very Linden community.

The idea here is not to question the righteousness of the Linden protest. Linden has within very recent times become a depressed area. There is a severe recession in the bauxite mining industry and this has adversely affected the fortunes and life styles of the Linden community. The Government has considered remedial action but so far there has been no visible economic relief to the community. The impact of the current failures in the power and water supply systems have added intolerably to the woes of the community and their anger is therefore appreciated. We are however concerned at the manner in which some elements have chosen to express that anger. We are not persuaded that Linden’s protest should be allowed to endanger the economies of the forest and mining sector. We do not believe that the Linden protesters should be allowed to engage in public mischief and extensive damage to public property seemingly with impunity. We feel very strongly that the bombast of creating another Buxton is most unfortunate.

The problems created by this new trend in street protests have presented the Government with one of its most serious domestic challenges. Nevertheless, the current situation at Linden demands a sympathetic response from Government. At the same time there is a dire need to firmly adhere to first principles. Can we afford to have every disgruntled community engage in such public mischief? Is the Government obliged to negotiate with a community that engages in acts resulting in costly damage to public property? Is it prudent for the President to sit down with the very persons who daily deliberately endanger the viability of Omai Gold Mines Limited and lesser mining entities? What is the perception, if not the message?

There are, to put it briefly, certain basic issues confronting the government and these must somehow be settled expeditiously and definitively. These issues will not disappear nor can they be evaded. There is a time-honoured legitimacy reserved for public protests and street protests, they will continue to enjoy that legitimacy for so long as they adhere to basic first principles. The Government must be wary of conveying the impression that lawlessness is an acceptable basis for gaining priority attention. If Buxton has taught us anything it is that when we sacrifice first principles at the alter of expediency, we cultivate monsters that haunt our tomorrows.