It is probably not surprising that quite a few commentators on the unfolding parking meter saga have alluded to the role which public protest has played in the evolution of the issue. They have made the point that in a society where resignation to impositions from above is not uncommon, a few hundred protestors outside City Hall and quite a few hundreds more who found options to buying parking may well succeed in turning back an onerous imposition.
Contextually, the implications of the protest and its outcomes go beyond the parking meters. It reflects an exercise in democratic behaviour that was well-planned and thoughtful and which, hopefully, sent a sobering message to those who believe in the expediency of edict.
To the credit of the those who fought back against the ‘higher ups’ at City Hall is the way in which they circumvented what appeared to have been an attempt to transform a broad-based protest into a political facedown. The grotesque practice of dividing Guyanese along partisan racial/political lines on major public issues has long been a staple in our societal behaviour and if we almost certainly have not seen the last of it, at least on this occasion it appears to have been anticipated and deftly eased to one side. What we must hope is that the rejection of the manner in which the parking meters were imposed sets a precedent that will be applied with the same sense of discipline and adherence to democratic behaviour whenever other unjust impositions recur.
We must hope, too, that the swift and, frankly, deeply embarrassing volte face which the upper echelons of City Hall have had to do serves as an object lesson to those in authority who favour impositions. It must extend into corrective measures that address, for example, the crass treatment often suffered by urban vendors at the hands of City Hall.
It may well be that Town Clerk Royston King has chosen to take counsel from the protest and its outcomes and consequently to remain relatively quiet. Not so Mayor Chase-Green, whose hasty recent climb-down to a point where she now voices support for a review of the parking meter charges appears hollow, hypocritical and more than a trifle comical. Meanwhile, the overall response of those others in the municipal administration who had thought that the customary bullyism could, on this occasion, be successfully repeated, has been to retreat into a near silence. Again, it is worth reminding ourselves that the power of people protest over unjust impositions, has not lost its potency. As for the high officials of City Hall we can do no more than hope that they carry this lesson over into their broader management of the city. Hopefully, the altogether unexpected and spontaneous public rejection of the parking meters will temper the aloofness and arrogance that have characterized their management style.
Central government, too, can take no pride in the way in which it handled the parking meters situation. If there is merit in the President’s view that the extant outcomes could have been averted had City Hall handled the matter differently, that view applies equally to central government. Not wishing to invade what it felt was municipal ‘turf’ is one thing. One feels, however, that there was always the clear option of inserting itself into the process tactfully since it was clear from the outset the implications of the introduction of parking meters, more particularly the additional financial burden, expanded the issue beyond City Hall’s purview. One cannot help but state that had the government chosen to offer a measure of clear but discreet guidance on the parking meters issue several months ago the Town Clerk and the Mayor et al would have felt constrained to temper what turned out to be an arbitrary and high-handed approach, that appeared to spurn the very idea of any significant consultation. There are those who may even argue that the government’s failure to have a decisive say, particularly in response to concerns surrounding the cost of the service, served to embolden City Hall.
The question also arises as to whether there is a cohesive coalition position on the future of the parking meters project since, while the Mayor (following a meeting with the President) has said that the parking rates will now be reviewed, the coalition partner in the administration has made it clear that it wants the project scrapped. The government, surely, cannot be proud of that eventuality.
Truth be told there ought to have been no need for the President’s intervention. For far too long the government appeared indifferent and flat-footed that, it seemed, is what might have led to the President’s direct involvement.
There are governance-related lessons to be learnt from the parking meters issue for both central government and City Hall, and we must hope that both institutions apply themselves in that regard. Such good as has come of the whole affair, however, reposes in the reinforcement of the axiom that where there exist sufficient measures of will and determination and a belief in the virtue of democratic behaviour, autocratic impositions will always stand on shaky ground.
