By Kemol King
In the two weeks following the disaster that befell the MV Barima, citizens have organized vigils, protests and calls for accountability. This includes a group called ‘We The People’, eventually revealed to be young ‘Gen Z’ folks, including students from the University of Guyana, who announced a demonstration near the Office of the President in Georgetown to demand justice. It didn’t take long for attention to shift from what these citizens were saying to who they were and whom they are supposedly politically aligned with.
One such actor influencing this conversation was Ruel Johnson, who said on Facebook that it would be helpful for the ‘non-political’ citizens behind this protest to come forward, suggesting that it would help to distance themselves from Opposition Leader Azruddin Mohamed. The politician had earlier said Guyanese should prepare for nationwide protests. In a July 27 post, ‘We The People’ distanced itself “from any association, alignment or affiliation with any of the opposition political parties in Guyana.” The group also said that its mission is not driven by partisan agendas and that it does not coordinate with any political machinery.
One organizer, Chandradatt Jagdeo, told Kiskadee Watch that the group was protesting the “current government policies as it relates to the MV Barima Tragedy.”
Somewhere along the way of this explanation, We The People allowed Johnson, an Advisor to the President, to goad it into inflicting new stipulations on the legitimacy of its protest action.
Yes, it is important for the public to know who the people behind a movement are, but it was not necessary for this group to define its legitimacy through its non-association with political parties. In doing so, We The People has made future cooperation with political parties more difficult to explain, even where such cooperation could advance its objectives. Citizens need not stray from cooperation with opposition political parties that were licensed by voters to hold the government accountable.
Implicit in the back-and-forth between Johnson and this new youth collective is the assumption that if something can be branded “political,” it can be easily dismissed. This is problematic.
Politics is not synonymous with partisanship. Politics is how citizens influence the decisions that affect their lives. When people protest, petition, criticize public officials or demand reforms, they are engaging in politics. That is not something to apologize for.
The distinction that matters is not between political and non-political. It is between partisan loyalty and civic engagement. A group may support no political party and still be engaged in politics. Likewise, a political figure may perform a genuine public service while also advancing his or her political interests. These things are not mutually exclusive.
Consider Azruddin Mohamed. As Opposition Leader, his participation in search efforts at sea and his criticism of the government’s handling of the tragedy were inevitably political. That does not automatically make those actions insincere or illegitimate. Public officials and political leaders are expected to respond during moments of national crisis. Their motives may be debated, but their arguments and actions should be assessed on their merits, not dismissed simply because they come from someone involved in politics.
The same principle applies to government ministers. When they visit affected families, announce measures or defend the administration’s response, they are also acting politically. That is the nature of public office. We should evaluate whether they acted effectively and responsibly, not assume that politics alone invalidates their actions.
Unfortunately, Guyanese have come to conflate politics with partisanship, both in language and in practice, and this habit impoverishes public discourse.
The result is a country where too many people conclude that speaking out is not worth the personal attacks and reputational damage that often follows. That should concern all Guyanese, regardless of political affiliation.
The involvement of young students in the demonstrations should be viewed positively, regardless of their association, or lack thereof, with political parties. In progressive societies, youth in academia have always been a driving force behind movements for positive change. In Guyana, we have not seen the same momentum. Guyana should therefore welcome peaceful student participation in national issues.
Their questions should be answered with facts and reasoned debate, instead of attempting to attach a political label and declare the conversation over.
The MV Barima tragedy deserves accountability and reforms that make such a disaster less likely to happen again. These goals will not be achieved by dividing citizens into political camps before we have even listened to what they are saying.
A proper democracy does not ask its citizens to prove they are apolitical before it takes their concerns seriously. But a much better question: Are they right?
