THE Georgetown City Council continues to find itself at the receiving end of the ire from its communities. The continued conflict between and among interest groups has its genesis in the view that business can be conducted in a manner that is informed by satisfying various groups in the absence of clear policies and universal application/enforcement of the by-laws.Over the years, there have been accusations that some proprietors encroach on city parapets, while there have also been some indifference to the arbitrary establishment of no-parking areas on the city streets and parapets; and some others have chosen to construct buildings that are clearly in conflict with the zoning and city by-laws. The city has also experienced collusion between store owners and vendors to occupy the paves in Georgetown.

While many of these activities were driven by the underlying intent of getting money to change, or even enhance, the livelihood of the players, one ought not to countenance these behaviours, since Guyana is a land of laws, which must be respected at all times.

The current conflict between the council and vendors who are occupying the Merriman Mall between Cummings Street and Orange Walk cannot be allowed to go unnoticed. It was the present council that took the decision to place the vendors in the now disputed area. One would have expected that, based on the experience the council would have acquired over the years, it would have learnt the simple lesson to include the respecting of its citizens’ rights as it goes about its day-to-day business.

The Guyana Constitution, which is this nation’s supreme instrument, has clearly stated that any decision that affects the well-being of citizens — be it economic, political, social or cultural — requires their involvement in the management and decision-making processes. In the instance of these vendors, they have consistently claimed that they were not consulted. In this circumstance, consultation means that there be meaningful discussions, and the groups arrive at a decision rather than entertaining the idea that the council will call vendors and tell them what will be done.

It needs to be noted that the vendors’ removal would have impacted on their economic well-being. In the first instance, the vendors were advised by the council to take up residency for business. And for the council to arbitrarily move to have the vendors removed without working out an arrangement for an alternative place of business speaks to a level of arrogance that ought not to be countenanced at any point. The idea of calling on the vendors to respect the by-laws speaks to a concomitant responsibility of the administrators to respect the laws also.

It is the administrators, as the city’s fathers and mothers, who have a greater responsibility to lead by example. In the execution of their duties, application of the laws and implementation of decisions have to take on board a cultural element of not seeking to displace one group with another. To say to the vendors that that must remove to give way to another group is downright insensitive, and will make a bad situation worse.

Resolution of this type of un-ending and unnecessary conflict requires of the council — as it pays heed to calls that the economic circumstances of the vendors need be considered as the by-laws are being upheld — that attention also be paid to sagacious advice that it is not what you do but how you do it.

We cannot keep doing the same thing over and over again and expect different results. The council and vendors are part of the city’s landscape. Both provide needed service to the city, its residents and visitors. Both have an equal responsibility to the society to ensure that the laws are not only upheld for them, but equally for the other. Both groups must meet and resolve this matter in an amicable manner within the confines of the law, but they must keep focus on the delivery of a “Clean and Green City.”