THE regimes of Adolf Hitler (1933-1945), Benito Mussolini (1922-1943) and General Franco (1939-1975) were undergirded by different views of fascism but they all spoke the language of violence. They were vicious and diabolic with perceived enemies of the state. The language of violence was also clearly spoken by the Duvalier and Trujillo regimes. Their demonstration of how the state apparatus, if left unchecked, can exact violence on its citizens is not easily paralleled. Guyana’s ethno-monolithic regimes in the post-1997-2015 period present an ignominious example that harks back to the aforementioned dark historical periods. This violent vindictive state took its last breath on May 11th, 2015, when the people of Guyana decided that enough was enough. Four years later, it is worth the ink to reflect on the transformation of the state apparatus from a violent entity to one that does not speak the language of violence.

The language of violence and the character of a President 
The character of a President in any political circumstance leaves its print on a society. There is no escaping this inextricable link. It can be safely argued Guyana was furnished with a vindictive state apparatus on August 11th, 1997 when Bharrat Jagdeo became President after some intricate executive bureaucratic shenanigans. Once he held his hand up and took the oath of office, his character immediately permeated the halls of power and by extension the wider society. The institution of the Presidency plays a key role in the affairs of the Guyana state; this is efficiently enabled by Article 184 (1) of the Guyana Constitution which ascribes presidential immunity. Make no mistake, it can be argued without successful contradiction that the language of violence was spoken by the Guyana state apparatus between 1997-2015 due to the mindset of a President and subsequent former President in whom power continues to reside. Over the years, this continues to haunt and it remains so with the spectre of a possible puppet Presidency. One of the key reasons for the absence of the use of violence as a mechanism by the present Guyana state is down to the character of the sitting Presidency. It is no accident. The President does not embrace the philosophy of vengeance or ‘no man, no problem’. This is a key reason why Guyana state apparatus no longer speaks the language of violence.

The Return of Peaceful Protest
The concept of good’ in ‘governance’ is an appendage to the word ‘governance’ and it is seen as the process and institutions by which authority in a country is exercised (World Bank, 2004). Furthermore, governance includes how governments are selected, held accountable, monitored and replaced with an emphasis on the capacity of government to manage resources and respect the rule of law (World Bank, 2004; Boyte, 2005). Therefore, the word ‘good’ in governance connotes the proper exercise of authority, management of resources and respect for the rule of law in accordance with laid-down principles for the benefit of all in society. A certain recourse available to citizens that holds governments to account is the right to peaceful protest. This has always and will continue to be the most legal efficacious avenue to express the concerns of the people between electoral cycles and as a mechanism for peacefully removing bad governments that present an existential threat to society. Political scientist, Erica Chenoweth, collected data on all major nonviolent and violent campaigns for the overthrow of a government or territorial liberation since 1900. Based on the data she uncovered, this has led her to the conclusion that non-violent resistance is far more effective than violent resistance. This research provided a stark reminder about the value of peaceful protest. This extremely valuable democratic tool was vilified, maligned and criminalized during the vindictive tutelage of the Guyana state apparatus pre-2015. Some peaceful protestors were executed and others were shot with live rounds. This is the regrettable circumstance that obtains when the state speaks the language of violence. The post-2015 state, under the leadership of David Arthur Granger, has consistently demonstrated its penchant for nurturing and encouraging the right to peacefully petition the government. Peaceful protests have returned and are now normalized because this is no longer the modus vivendi of the current state apparatus.

The blossoming of democracy and the rise of small parties
Recently, there has been the rise of a plethora of political parties. Pastors, businessmen and women, teachers, young leaders and ordinary citizens have stepped forward to present themselves to the electorate. This development warrants some analytical introspection. Some have argued that this is due to the collapse of the Alliance for Change (Ramkarran 2019). For me, this is not so, any fair and objective reflection has to lead to the inevitable conclusion that this is definitely due, in large part, to the fact that the present Guyana state apparatus does not speak the language of violence. If there is any doubt, a cursory glance at what obtained pre-2015 would suffice. The pre-2015 status quo made politics and civic participation seem like very dangerous affairs. It was indeed a dangerous business. Those who engaged in political organization during this period were subjected to victimization, treason charges, death, maiming or the possibility of faeces and dangerous substances being thrown in their faces. This scared citizens and the thought of forming political parties to solicit support in the heavily fortified ethnic enclaves loyal to the vindictive state was tantamount to suicide. This is no longer the case and it most definitely due to the complete different posture of the present posture of the state apparatus.