Dear Editor,
President Ramotar’s threat to prorogue or dissolve parliament in response to a no-confidence motion is to be condemned by all Guyanese as a cowardly attack against democracy, the rule of law, and the entitlement of citizens to representative government. Such actions, or even contemplation of such, should not go unanswered. I am however, concerned about the AFC choice of response.
The call for street action by the AFC is unimaginative, filled with risk, unlikely to bring about the desired result, and may be considered irresponsible. Guyanese are well aware of the risks involved. The AFC must also know that the PPP, in its desperation, will do anything to remain in power, including provoking confrontation and division. Does the AFC believe that only opposition supporters will be on the streets; that street action will be a one-sided affair? Do they not realise that the PPP will also call out their people with the possible consequences that might entail? Is that what the AFC wants for Guyana?
Experts say that pro-democracy forces, such as opposition parties in Guyana, should attack dictatorships at their weakest points. The state, therefore, should never be confronted in the streets, as dictatorships are strongest in that aspect, and governments will always win. Instead, pro-democracy forces must use tactics, within a carefully formulated strategy, to deprive dictators of their sources of power.
Dictators need support structures to remain in office, and pro-democracy activists can systematically dismantle those structures, if activists are patient, thoughtful, and strategic in their approach, instead of reactionary and emotive.
Did the AFC even consider calling for strikes, sit-ins, sick-outs, a shut-down of transportation, go-slows, work-to-rule, withdrawal of cooperation, economic boycott, refusal of services, or any of countless other mass actions which could be far more effective in ending PPP oppression? Any informed analyst would agree that a dictatorship cannot stand when pro-democracy advocates are effective in undermining its power sources.
Why then, did the AFC jump to street action, the least effective, most risky response?
It should be noted, street action is the only form of protest which has a high risk. It will also probably result in confrontation, lawlessness, and further social division. Why jump to the least effective, most costly action, when there are so many safer, proven, well developed options, yet to be exercised?
Leaders must be more imaginative in their fight for democracy; they should exercise greater responsibility. Moreover, they should always be driven by a grand strategy, rather than emotion. And they must be better informed and educated in such matters.
Yours faithfully,
Mark DaCosta
