WE have editorialised about the potential threat of the PPP’s proposed plan of non-cooperation with the government to the integrity of the country. Our objection to the PPP’s plan is not informed by a desire to stifle protest and resistance. To the contrary, we wish to register our commitment to free speech and general respect for the right of dissent and to eschew any attempt by the state to crush such rights. One of the lessons of slavery and colonialism is the extent to which the denial of freedom messes with the collective mind of a people. It is therefore, incumbent upon post-colonial societies to ensure that independence always confirms to the promotion of freedom, including the freedom to disagree with the government of the day.

But freedom cannot be construed in isolation from the general well-being and security of the larger collective. In other words, the freedom of the individual and individual groups to act and intervene in the politics, economics and the larger social process of the society should not be at the expense of the general good. This is an overarching consideration that must be at the centre of any national pact and must inform political action. Freedom is indispensable, but freedom without limits militates against the very notion of freedom.
This past week, we witnessed where freedom without limits can take us. PPP members of parliament felt that it was within their right to unfurl placards in parliament and proceed to deliberately interfere with the presentation of the President. The outcome was that the President’s right to be heard by the highest elected body of our country was denied by the right of the PPP to protest what they see as the government’s high-handedness.
The question that needs to be asked is this: how can perceived denial be turned back by counter-denial? There is a school of thought that posits that resistance to the denial of freedom cannot be equated with the vey denial of freedom. The issue, then, is whether the nature of the PPP’s actions is disproportionate to the charges it has levelled against the government.

We answer that question in the negative. The PPP’s quarrel with the government is over the interpretation of the constitution regarding the appointment of the GECOM chair. The two sides have interpreted the constitution differently and the PPP has decided to challenge the president’s interpretation in the courts. The government has not sought to block this move towards judicial review as authoritarian governments usually do. If that were the case, the PPP’s actions in parliament would be justified.

While the PPP members were demonstrating inside, scores of its members mounted a similar protest outside. That protest action was not closed down by the police—nobody was beaten or arrested. One must, therefore, ask why the PPP thought that it needed to take the protest inside the House and in many respects, engage in mob behaviour. From all reports, the protestors were better behaved that the [dis}honourable members inside.
The PPP has had access to the media, including this newspaper, to air its objection to the president’s decision. We have not heard any complaints of censorship or the denial of media coverage. Yet, the party would consider turning the parliament into a street-corner political spectacle that flies in the face of political decency.

The irony is that the record of this government as far as upholding the tenets of civil liberty is far more superior that the PPP’s when that party held office. That it has decided on its current course is most baffling to those who proceed from the view that the PPP is committed to a stable and cohesive polity. The party seems to be giving credence to the widespread view that it is driven by a chronic need for returning to power at all costs, including poisoning the political environment in the most wilful and destructive manner.
We come back to the question of freedom to protest perceived and real wrongs by government. We feel that the PPP has undermined its own case in this regard. A responsible party should only resort to such extreme and desperate actions when all other doors are closed. As we have pointed out above, this is not the case.

What example are the senior members of the party setting for younger members? What example are they setting for the country? Are they signalling to the country that unprovoked mob behaviour is a norm to which we should aspire? Have they so lost faith in our institutions that they are prepared to destroy their integrity?

No, this is not the Guyana that we should aspire to. We have always disagreed politically, but in a democratic environment, despite its areas of imperfection, one expects better from a party that is almost 70 years old. While such action may receive applause from loyal followers and sycophants, in the end it diminishes the party of Cheddi Jagan and takes Guyana to another place of shame.