By Ron Cheong
THE philosopher Thomas Hobbes, a leading thinker in modern political philosophy, describes a conceptual state of nature in which everyone is completely free to do as he pleases.
A man can kill his neighbour, drag the neighbour’s mate off or steal his cattle with no legal consequences whatsoever. The trouble is that he is also subject to the same danger – someone else, in turn, can come along and burn his shelter down, injure him or take his goods away.
Obviously, this is not a satisfactory state of affairs. People would be constantly living in a heightened state of fear, not to mention real mortal danger.
In a self-interested move, people as a society agreed to give up certain rights “to” in exchange for rights “from”. For example, men jointly gave up the right to trespass on their neighbour’s plot and in turn received the right to be free from attacks in the night.
In other words, they entered a social contract in which they gain certain civil rights in return for placing their actions under the jurisdiction of a common authority and subjecting themselves to certain penalties for breaking the rules.
Each democracy has an established body of common law handed down over the years. In addition, the elected representatives of the people pass new laws or amend existing ones. The Police are responsible for enforcing these laws, preventing unlawful activity and maintaining public order and safety. And the courts are charged with adjudicating the rules and applying the laws to disputes brought before them.
Agreeing to a code of behaviour is part of the contract we have made to live in democratic civilised society. Overall, everyone gains more than he or she loses. What people give up is more than compensated for by other rights they value more, like the right to security, free speech, to own personal property, to follow their religion of choice or not follow a religion, etc.
Moreover, the opportunity exists through the democratic process to modify the laws if enough people feel that, as they stand, these laws aren’t serving the society’s best interests or they are infringing on basic freedoms that ought to be left to the discretion of the individual. These are elements of the foundation of society.
Assault on the Fabric of Society
What took place last week in Mon Repos is an assault on the foundations of society. The location was Mon Repos, but the assault was on the fabric of Guyanese society – the knitting that holds everything together.
To be sure, protest is an unequivocal right in a democracy and may even be an obligation in some circumstances. Democratic protest is often a catalyst for peaceful change, or for drawing attention to perceived injustices; however, what descended on Mon Repos was not peaceful protest or democratic.
Media reports say it began as a peaceful protest over the shooting death of Quindon Bacchus who was killed in a police operation, and his family’s dissatisfaction over the progress of the ensuing police inquiry.
But what arguably started as a pursuit of justice, one way or another, saw a metamorphosis into its antithesis. Mob rule and attacks on people in a distant village is neither justice nor can it be justified.
The people in Mon Repos and other nearby villages, like people elsewhere in the country, were going about their day exercising their right “to”. They were tending their market stalls, looking after their property, going shopping, making deliveries, being with friends and family, and, in fact, doing all the things people elsewhere around the country take for granted every day.
And as they should, they fully expected to do so securely without fear “from” being assaulted by a mob, robbed, chased, their property being torched, being traumatised or being caught up in any type of disturbance.
Future Deterrent
The attack on the country’s very fabric indicates that those who either participated in, or instigated, the assault considered any possible personal fallout or resultant consequences to themselves insufficient to restrain their actions.
They figured that the probability of them being held accountable was low, and that any possible penalty for their actions not painful enough to be a deterrent.
No community in the country should have what transpired in Mon Repos visited upon them. There must be strong deterrents. Furthermore, for deterrents to be effective there should be no doubt in the minds of potential offenders that the consequences would be swift and significant.
They should know that the probability of them being apprehended and prosecuted is high. And that if found guilty, the personal penalties would be meaningful.
This is accomplished through the work of the legislature, the courts and policing. If there are laws on the books to adequately address the causes and actions at Mon Repos, they should be used.
If there are not, the legislature should enact. If there are relevant sentencing guidelines, the courts should apply them. If they are not, guidelines should be developed. In addition, policing has to be responsive enough to act as a deterrent and effective enough to increase the probability of apprehension and prosecution.
People across the political spectrum, in whatever part of the country and in every community, should be confident that the social contract is alive and well.
And that they can go about earning a living, and living their lives fully in a rules-based society which, among other rights, provides for people being able to protest lawfully.
