It is well within the right and interest of any Parliamentary Opposition Party to agitate or lobby the Government on behalf of its constituents. Here in the Caribbean, this remonstration embodies an element of confrontation. One may argue that the Guyana-style protest is conditioned by effects of slavery still remnant in the psyche of the Caribbean man, or that it is a spin-off from revolts by which independence was gained – both plausible arguments.

In the context of modernisation and sophistication, however, evolution of the mind and of human activity is indispensable.

Protest, historically, has been the occasion used by many belligerent and criminal elements to perpetrate illicit, reprehensible acts. In the name of ‘protesting’, many people choose to loot business places; torture innocent citizens; kill people who are conceived to be supportive of the party or body against which protest is mounted; stop traffic flow, among other things. These acts result in ethnic tension, loss of loved ones, slow down of commercial activity, and generally, retardation of progress.

The opposition party, in its appreciation of these realities therefore, may find it necessary to devise new means of registering its concerns. Perhaps ‘protesting’, in the context of modernity, is archaic and should be replaced by public demonstration strategies that are more goal-oriented, innovative and imaginative.

I look with much trepidation at protest activities, how inefficient they are in eliciting desired response, and how they cause the stature of political figures to seem dwindling. I would shudder to think that political leaders would intend for all the ills I mentioned earlier to be associated with their protest. Worse yet, I would be traumatised to discover that these degenerate, inhumane acts are conceived and incubated by political leaders and or their associates and hatched with protest as a facade.
GUY SCHOLARI