Dear Editor,
The PNC leader, Mr. Aubrey Norton, recently outlined his position on street protests during an interview on KAMS TV’s Guyanese Morning Time, hosted by Kidackie Amsterdam. His remarks have re-ignited discussion across the African community about the role and effectiveness of street protests as a political strategy. My approach in discussing this matter is to avoid reducing the discussion to any single individual or political leader. The question of African street protest and its political usefulness predate Mr. Norton’s rise to the leadership of the PNC. This is not to give him a pass on his stewardship on this important political matter. Rather, it is an effort to develop a broader understanding of a recurring challenge among African politicians and political organisations. This is important since the problem can persist long after he departs from the PNC leadership or politics altogether.
The history of Guyana has been one of resistance and protest. The right to street protest was won with the sweat and blood of our people and evolved as an important form of struggle. The colonial rulers were forced to concede that political space to the masses, their organisations, and their leadership. All the major political forces, trade unions, and, to a lesser extent, cultural and religious groups, have used street protests and demonstrations as effective means of drawing attention to their concerns and demands, while pressuring the authorities for change or concessions. In February 1964, the PPP staged a big 123-mile protest across Guyana, known as the “Freedom March,” to advance its then political objectives and goals. This was an accepted reality in the anti-colonial and early post-independence period.
The anti-dictatorial forces of the 1980s relied heavily on street protests in their struggle against the PNC government. Both the PPP and the WPA used these mobilisations to advance their political objectives and to promote the interests of the masses and the country. The WPA, however, never engaged in violent street protests. Rather, much of the violence associated with its activism was directed against it by PNC forces, the House of Israel, or the police. The PPP’s history of street protest presents a different picture. At various points, particularly in the sugar belt and in some rural Indo-Guyanese communities, protests associated with the PPP were accompanied by acts of violence and confrontation.
The legitimacy of street protests was questioned after the effective Desmond Hoye/PNC-led protests in 1997, and thereafter. The PPP, Indian rights activists, and sections of the business community, citing attacks on Indians and businesses, demanded an end to African street protests as a political tool. It is important to note that it was not a call for the end of street protests in general, but only African protests.
I support the popular view among opposition supporters that the African community and its political leadership allowed themselves to be” whitemailed” by the PPP, Indian Rights activists, city business, Stabroek News, the diplomatic community, and others who consistently criticised and opposed street protests. These forces were promoting agendas that were not necessarily aligned with African interests or with the political and social challenges confronting the African community and its leadership. In the process, they succeeded in decapitating the community, depriving it of a major political instrument for effective politics in the face of an aggressively dominating regime that used state violence and victimisation as an effective political instrument for domination.
Over the years and more recently, I have paid keen interest to how African leadership and more particularly African political leaders, or more correctly African politicians in electoral political parties, deal with the issue of African street protests when they are pressured by the masses/supporters or critics on their position. The classical approach is to highlight the difficulties street protests face due to the regime’s repressive and violent tactics, including arrests, beatings, shootings, and killing protestors, which is usually done mainly by the police. They also cite the PPP and government practice of infiltrating protests with their paid provocateurs, whose main job is to engage in violent and criminal acts targeting Indians and their businesses. It is this tactic that broke the back of the Desmond Hoyte street protests, thereby “whitemailing” the street protests as deliberate attacks on Indians for political goals. I should also include another, less publicly discussed explanation: the pressure exerted by the diplomatic community and by sections of the African middle class that are receptive to its influence.
The narrative would also be incomplete without mentioning three additional arguments frequently advanced against street protests: (1) the lack of money to sustain protests, (2) people’s reluctance to come out and support the protest, and (3) the belief that protests are only worthwhile if they result in regime change. Taken together, these points constitute a fair representation of the case made by those who oppose organizing street protests. I readily acknowledge that these are genuine challenges associated with street protests. Yet the crucial question remains: do these difficulties justify abandoning street protest as a political weapon?
Now, let me narrate what our political leaders don’t say about their attitude to street protests. They never admit that they are not the kind of leaders willing to risk arrest or to go to jail to promote resistance against the rulers. Their personal comfort is paramount. Their politics is one of minimal risk, little sacrifice; whatever their political convictions, they do not seem to believe in leading by example.
For them, to borrow a popular expression, “saving their own skin” is the name of the game. This approach emboldens those in power by giving them greater space to repress that masses with impunity, secure in the knowledge that opposition leaders are unlikely to place themselves directly in harm’s way.
Leaders’ unwillingness to stand up and not be intimidated by the regime‘s jails weakens the resistance culture of their support base and the country. This is not inspiring leadership. All oppressive regimes know that it is easier to get away with the use of violence and repression against the masses, but to do the same to leaders attracts more sympathy and condemnation at home and abroad. So, in their self-interest, they seek to avoid such actions by not escalating the tension and political struggle. A serious opposition must be conscious of this dynamic and act accordingly. It must be prepared to challenge those in power in ways that push them beyond their political comfort zone and force them to confront choices they would rather avoid.
Some African leaders and politicians are usually dishonest in their approach to the usefulness of street protests in the struggle, hiding behind the argument that it is only useful if it results in bringing down the government. Their faulty logic is that if a street protest will not bring regime change, it is pointless. I deliberately chose to use the word dishonest since they are aware, have knowledge and experience that the political value of street protests is not restricted to regime change. The usefulness of this political tool in the struggle is well established in the annals of history, Guyana, and the world. The evidence shows that its main value is to highlight the people’s concerns and to pressure the system for change. It is time that our leaders stopped the game-playing on this important matter.
I conclude by reminding our leaders of a point I have made elsewhere. The African community must engage in peaceful street protests in our communities to demonstrate our concerns to the wider world, show those in power that we are not defeated, and allow the younger generation to experience our collective political strength. In short, we must prepare our people to be “battle-ready” for the ultimate engagement that lies ahead. This cannot be achieved overnight; it must be a gradual process. Starting with small protests, one stage at a time, we must reclaim our streets to get to meaningful social and political change.