Jaya Manickchand: A cry for help in hopeless conditions

There has been much justifiable condemnation of the position taken by Ms. Jaya Manickchand on Facebook in relation to the killing of three young men by the police. Indeed, unless her opposition to extrajudicial killing is only theoretical, I cannot see how she could also hold the view that it is a waste of the state’s resources to attempt to find out precisely what happened at the scene of the shooting!

Much of the furor resulted from the fact that her statements came as a surprise to many. How, they wondered, could someone who is a young lawyer sworn to uphold the basic legal principles, has held an important public position that requires a certain level of objectivity and is located in the hierarchy of the ruling party, be in possession of such alarming views? Many have reposed much of their hopes for the future of Guyana in the young, who are supposedly more liberal and progressive. Are they wrong?

One swallow does not make a summer, but Ms. Manickchand’s position does point to the possibility that our expectations may be over optimistic. Young people may not have any practical experience of living under past regimes but perhaps they have experienced worse: a socialisation process in which what life was under previous regimes and most likely will be under similar future ones, had been extremely propagandised.

Ms. Manickchand is sufficiently educated to know that her position does not contain a solution to the crime situation and perhaps we are too hard on her. Bandits appear to be everywhere, striking right, left and centre, and her party appears to have no answers. What is to be done? Her outburst then appears to me no more than a cry for help in the hopeless conditions in which she finds herself.

Out of government, the present regime drilled into its supporters that if ever it came to power it would usher in an era of peace, stability, security and development. Despite its best intentions and efforts, now in government it simply cannot deliver! Fleeting periods of stability and security are coupled with a persistent subterranean volatility. As to the development, as a colleague said, “When you take your pregnant wife to a public health institution to deliver, walk with your priest!”

future notesFaced with this reality, as if the opposition parties have only now materialised, the PPP/C is blaming them for its incapacity to fulfill its promises. Daily we hear that the opposition is stymieing development by not agreeing to various projects, is encouraging or in league with criminals and so preventing effective measures being put in place, and so on.

Then there is another fundamental difficulty. A day does not pass when the opposition has not accused the recent past and present PPP/C regimes themselves of extreme levels of crime and corruption, which if true could have serious repercussions for those involved if they ever lose power. Indeed, these days, particularly online, these accusations are almost unavoidable.  Since the opposition is not going to go away anytime soon, and if anything is becoming stronger, and since the PPP/C is in no position to risk relinquishing government, our situation is indeed hopeless.

In this context the regime’s message to its members and supporters is simple. The PPP/C is involved in a permanent struggle against evil and dangerous forces, particularly APNU but also the traitorous AFC! It will do the best it can but stability will be always be tenuous and development suboptimal as long as these dangerous forces continue to exist. In this context, if the party is to plod on, the most immediate and important task is to win back its majority in parliament.

This position is not without some amount of truth. The PPP/C alone cannot provide the required level of security and development. For example, passing laws about police reforms will not in themselves make the police apparatus significantly more successful. Effective policing requires an across the board cooperative environment and the required level of cooperation will not be forthcoming from any individual or group that believes they are being shortchanged by the society in which they live.

For similar type reasoning, when the PPP was in opposition, it either did not cooperate with the PNC government or only did so when it suited its purpose! Forbes Burnham and his PNC could have suffocated under their disclaimers. So far as the PPP was concerned, Burnham was an old-time African dictator who rigged elections and used the public purse to feather the nest of his supporters.

The crimes and corruption allegations have already helped to undercut the regime’s support and will do so more significantly in the future if the leadership shows any sign of requiring any deal to save themselves and thus put the country back on track. A day in politics is a long time and the leadership of the PPP/C must play for time, hoping that memories will fade, the opposition will be significantly reduced and that opportunity for better collaboration will present itself. This is usually paced in the very long-term framework of “building trust.” Until then, the PPP/C leadership knows the required level of cooperation will not be forthcoming, but what choice does it have?

I believe here is where the opposition can be more creative. It needs to properly consider where we are and conceptualise and mobilise for a sensible way out of the present impasse. What we are hearing from it at present are essentially platitudes about the obstinacy and controlling tendency of the PPP/C. Parliamentary tit-for-tat is now the name of the game as the opposition waits and hopes for the day when the PPP/C will lose its plurality or the country descends into anarchy and change. In my view, the belief that the PPP will lose the plurality any time soon is farfetched and anarchy is hardly ever discriminating.

Guyana is an unusual country and odd occurrences have plagued our history. My concern is essentially with the recent past and in today’s more open and democratic world all kinds of agreements can be made to facilitate greater openness and development. 21st century leadership demands creative and liberating approaches or the hopelessness that is the consequence of the regime’s present stance will soon become infectious.