Dear Editor,
One appreciates the bind in which the government, faced with post-Lusignan calls for talks about the violence, finds itself.
An admission of the possibility of dialogue with the violently dissatisfied and their representatives imposes, ab initio, an admission that there is something to talk about. That there are grounds for discontent and that the existence of perceptions of injustice is sufficiently powerful for it to have led to loss of life and the sustained predation to which its supporters are exposed. The PPP/C would have to admit that there is crime with its range of social causes, but also that there is something more. Something of a consistency and substance sufficient to serve as a base for race-targeted action, centrally directed or not.
The government has historically shown no inclination to make such admissions and therefore the terms of reference and boundaries of any dialogue become the first stone on which the idea of peace by means of talks is shattered. So far the ruling party and its government has responded to cries of marginalisation by trotting out statistics on Afro-Guyanese presence in sectors in which they are dominant not by virtue of fair practice by our current leaders, but by historical design and accident. The government has also preferred to respond to charges of political and racial discrimination by another type of subterfuge. It points to the creation of an Ethnic Relations Commission which has tried to work, but so far worked only to exculpate the ruling party and government. It contributed only to the sleight of hand with statistics, as in the case of charges of favouritism in the attribution of scholarships. And besides, the government and ruling party have lain the disquiet and disorder bred by fact and perception at the feet of certain opposition parties, notably the PNCR-1G, which it portrays as panting and pawing the ground to get back in power.
So, as far as the government is concerned, there is no reason for Afro-Guyanese discontent. There only is the trans-generational and epic struggle with the usual villains of the PNCR-1G. The fact that the PNCR-1G has acted in ways to strengthen this belief – denying that it fairly lost previous elections, or allowing itself to be seen as ambivalent on the Buxton problem- introduces another important factor. It is that the PNCR-1G is not expected to give a fair hearing to a government which must surely be aware that it too is not without guilt. If, then, the dialogue is articulated around the old PPPC/PNCR-1G rivalries it will get nowhere.
Given that the government’s first public response to the crime wave in 2003 was to deny that it had a racist and political aspect the narrow range of the response to our current situation becomes predictable and the difficulties it faces when demands for dialogue are made have to be taken into account.
On February 1 I sent you an appreciation of the post-Lusignan situation in which I stated that force alone does not solve our type of problem. It is clear that order needs to be restored and the vulnerable protected. But these are immediate and short term security needs. The medium and long term requirements are or a different order. Both the ruling party and the opposition must have taken this into account. And in calling for dialogue the difficulties facing the PPP/C and PNCR-1G must be taken into account.
Let us not for one moment imagine that the PPP/C has not weighed the options. Dr Roger Luncheon, an erudite man of a certain generation, would be aware, even as he dismisses the idea of talks, of the causes and fates of international urgency in the fifties, sixties and seventies. Mr Rohee, Mr Ramotar, Mrs Jagan, Mr Ramkarran and other PPP/C leaders are persons whose understanding of politics extends beyond the domestic and regional. The first factor that is to be considered is that the hesitance to engage the opposition on crime and violence is grounded in something other than ignorance.
Here we have to admit and anticipate that the mutual recrimination that characterises relations between the two parties will quickly derail any direct engagement between them.
What we need then is a group, body, commission or tribunal as neutral as is possible, to hear, deliberate and recommend.
Any party that retreats from this type of process or refuses to contribute is condemning itself. The PPP/C should not imagine that it has anything to gain by dismissing national efforts to defuse a worrying situation. And the PNCR-1G should not imagine that it would derive any direct profit from it.
The will of the government is not to be taken as the sole determining element in the creation of a body to look into the causes.
But it would be useful for the government to be involved and for the Police and other state agencies to contribute. And this should not be seen as a “black people thing.” Indians, also have a lot to complain about.
The idea of a movement led by civic society must now be explored. And as we approach this matter, the fears and complexes with which each party or people can approach “talks” have to be taken into consideration.
Yours faithfully,
Abu Bakr
