Political violence

It is not known if the shooting of agriculture minister Satyadeow Sawh was the result of a political assassination or a robbery.

But Guyana’s ruling People’s Progressive Party (PPP) has immediately described the killing as an assassination, saying that the minister’s killing was designed to foment hatred and violence ahead of the general election due in August. Of course, the PPP has no idea if this is the case or not, and by its own hasty statement on the matter has shown that it is not itself above fomenting hatred and violence. The Opposition People’s National Party (PNP) in that country took a similar tack when television talkshow host Ronald Wadell, a militant black activist and fierce critic of the PPP, was murdered by gunmen three months ago.

So the hatred and violence in Guyana, even if it is rooted in criminal activity, has a political and racial dimension. That is why UNC chairman and Opposition Leader Basdeo Panday has weighed in, characterising Sawh’s murder as “a manifestation of political violence” which was introduced to Guyana by Forbes Burnham.

The latter part of this statement is certainly true.

Burnham was installed into office by the illegitimate ousting of Cheddi Jagan and then stayed in power through rigged elections and violence. While in power, the Burnham regime impoverished Guyana by pursuing the protectionist tactics so beloved by leftist ideologues throughout the Caribbean. He also oppressed Guyanese citizens of Indian descent, driving out most of Guyana’s professionals and intellectuals — and it is to the discredit of all Caribbean politicians that they continued to deal with Burnham while he was in power. However, it is not clear that the PPP, having got into power, did not pursue a similar agenda of violence, with its former National Security Minister having been accused of creating extra-legal police squads.

So it may well be that the prevalence of armed gangs in Guyana is an offshoot of political deals being struck with criminals. It is for a similar reason that elections in Jamaica are always characterised by murders between politically aligned garrison communities in old Kingston. The roots of that violence stretch back to the 1970s, when Jamaica’s political leaders decided to supply guns to dons in order to win votes. That tactic resulted in Jamaica now having the third highest murder rate in the world.

These lessons, however, seem to have been lost on our political leaders here in Trinidad and Tobago. It was only three years ago that Mr Manning met with “community leaders”, as he described them, to negotiate some sort of truce. Since then, the murder rate has soared to unprecedented levels. Another senior PNM Minister, Ken Valley, has stated in Parliament that gang leaders have to be treated with.

And, just last week, Junior National Security Minister Fitzgerald Hinds declared that it was his duty to talk to such individuals in the interest of peace. But the Opposition UNC can claim no high ground on this matter either, since its leader met with known criminals, the Jamaat al Muslimeen, soon after Mr Panday became Prime Minister, with Mr Panday justifying this by saying that it was his responsibility to “meet with everyone”.

It is true that there is nothing wrong with the principle of negotiation. But negotiation requires that each party give something in order to get something. And therein lies the problem: for, whenever a government agrees to negotiate with criminals without addressing the core issues that create criminality, then violence inevitably takes over the society.