That Pegasus Protest

MANY people are saying it was only a matter of time before it happened. We are of course referring to the PPP’s protest at the Pegasus last Thursday when in the estimation of some observers, the parliamentary opposition party showed its hands. As President David Granger addressed members of the Guyana Manufacturing and Services Association (GMSA), PPP protestors led by known leaders of the party made their way into the conference room and rudely attempted to prevent the Guyanese leader from speaking.
The raising of placards and the shouting of slogans at the Head of State was nothing short of a sorry picture for which the PPP should be eternally ashamed. Many would know that since its electoral defeat in 2015, that party has resorted to a crude form of opposition that has bordered on violence.

There is sometimes a thin line between legitimate protest and maintaining order and civility. Did the PPP cross that line? This newspaper feels that that line was indeed crossed. We respect the right of all Guyanese to protest policies and leadership with which they disagree. It is a cherished right which governments across the world have not always protected. In other words, government have tended to err on the side of order over freedom of expression. However, there are times when individuals and groups have in the process of expressing their right infringed on the rights of others, causing a breakdown of order. We feel that is exactly what happened at the Pegasus.

Was the level and tone of the protest warranted? We think not. According to the PPP, the demonstration was called to protest the illegality of the government which they claimed was squatting in office. Their main argument is that President Granger’s failure to call elections within 90 days of the CCJ’s ruling on the no-confidence motion amounted to a breach of the constitution. This contention is not shared by many legal scholars and political commentators, who have contended that, that constitutional requirement is premised on another requirement—the responsibility to hold credible elections.

That responsibility rests solely with GECOM which could not guarantee those elections within the stipulated timeline. The President who has the final say on naming an election date correctly decided that his power must be carried out on the advice of GECOM—that he would not call an election unless he could ascertain GECOM’s readiness. The sticking point was the voters’ list, which was deemed by GECOM to be so contaminated that it would have compromised the integrity of the elections. The President, therefore, sought to balance the requirements of Article 106-6 with the requirements for credible elections. This approach was endorsed or recommended by none other than the CCJ, which in its ruling urged the major political actors to balance principle with practicality.

So, the charge of breaching the constitution does not take into consideration the political and other realities of the situation. It is premised on a very narrow reading of what obtains. In this regard, the opposition has created a constitutional crisis in which it has found the government to be in the breach. The protest at the Pegasus then was a response to this flawed narrative. Hence it could hardly qualify as a legitimate protest.

Another observation has to do with the aggressiveness of the protest. The harassment of ministers of the government and the menacing attitude towards the President cannot be defended. In our charged political environment, that kind of behaviour could have a dangerous ripple effect. The President and the government have drawn attention to this dimension of the situation. This newspaper lends its voice to this pushback against what is correctly characterised as hooliganism. There must be a limit to which protestors should go. There is a difference between peaceful and lawful protest and public displays of thuggery.

Perhaps the irony of the PPP protesting and not being brutalised by State forces is lost on that party which had criminalised opposition protests when it held office. That the PPP presided over the most brutal regime in Guyana’s post-independence history is an understatement. The massacre of young men and the assassination of known activists are still fresh on the minds of the country. The PPP’s hands are still stained with the blood of those innocent citizens who dared to protest against the government formed by that party. Many still remember the purchase of water cannons to quell legitimate protests.
It has been drawn to our attention that the tenor of the protests at Linden in 2012 against the removal of a government subsidy on electricity was nowhere near the demonstrations at the Pegasus. Yet the PPP government responded with a hail of bullets that left many injured and three residents dead. Courtney Crum-Ewing was slaughtered with a bullhorn in his hand as he sought to rally citizens to stand against the PPP regime. The cruel assassination of Ronald Waddell and the summary incarceration of Mark Benschop still evoke sad and charged memories.

That the PPP could behave in such a crude manner at the Pegasus and not be touched by the police or hauled to jail is testimony to the way in which the coalition government has restored a sense of dignity to governance in Guyana. We have moved away from the police state which obtained under the PPP. It is in this spirit that we urge the government not to be tempted by the deliberate brazenness of the PPP. But even as we say that, the PPP must know that, that kind of behaviour is unacceptable in a civilised polity. We are opposed to any threat to protest and resistance. But we are equally opposed to hooliganism disguised as protest, deliberately aimed at disturbing the peace and threatening the lives of government functionaries.

SHARE THIS ARTICLE :
Facebook
Twitter
WhatsApp

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

All our printed editions are available online
emblem3
Subscribe to the Guyana Chronicle.
Sign up to receive news and updates.
We respect your privacy.