Jermaine Figueira, judging from his public demeanour, doesn’t come across as one, who would ever have what’s colloquially known as, a rush of blood. As a matter of fact, representing an APNU+AFC Member of Parliament, he stands as the epitome of one who is forever even-tempered. Therefore, based on this admirable public demeanour, none would’ve foreseen him penning this most offensive of missive: “Guyanese in the diaspora should reject this foolish boycott call.” But that was certainly his doing, in response to an economic boycott call, by Social Activist Mark Benschop. In fact, Benschop was rightfully responding to the installed President’s Brooklyn visit, and his opportunistic engagements, with some members of the Afro-Guyanese business community. For these opportunistic engagements were wholly political, of no benefit to Afro-Guyanese, hence roundly condemned, even as I took pause to reflect.
Thus, I reflected on the multitude who had their properties bulldozed and flooded. I reflected on the Henry boys’ brutal murders. I reflected on the extrajudicial killings of innumerable Black men. I reflected on the Madhia 20 reduced to incinerated ash. I reflected on our discriminated teachers, facing the elements for only pennies. I reflected on our undervalued nurses toiling in miasma, only to be rewarded pittance. I reflected on our public servants, struggling on slave wages, yet terminated without due process. I reflected on rampant political persecutions. I reflected on the race-based award of infrastructure contracts. I reflected on our communities being denied development. I reflected on the damning United Nations Commission on Human Rights report. I reflected on the revealing Transparency International reports. I reflected on IDPADA-G and their financial deprivation.
Moreover, as I excruciatingly reflected, my thoughts inevitably transitioned to Dr. Martin Luther King, and the sacrifices made for those, now embracing this modern-day oppressor. As a result, I reflected on the agonising life experiences of Black Americans, under the then discriminatory Jim Crow laws. For it was these discriminations, victimisations and extrajudicial killings, that motivated Dr Martin Luther King to lift his voice and his people, against the oppressors. In fact, the tools he utilised were peacefully yasal, encompassing street protest, boycott and civil disobedience. As a matter of fact, it was those socially driven tools, being financially painful to the oppressors and any who enable the oppressors, that liberated Black Americans from the atrocities of the Jim Crow laws.
And it’s in this context, of America Jim Crow laws, that we take pause to rationalise our responses to PPP racist policies. The fact is, in the context of America, neither the Montgomery bus drivers nor the bus company, enacted these oppressive and discriminatory laws. But what can’t be denied is that they embraced it, providing explicit support, through their actions and policies, for the racist oppressors. Thus, recognising their explicit support for the oppressors, meant Rosa Parks and thousands of Black Americans, including Dr Martin Luther King, boycotted the Montgomery buses. Similarly, those who would enable PPP, are from their actions, providing explicit support to PPP discrimination, victimisation and extrajudicial killings. Therefore, informed by Dr Martin Luther King precedence, these PPP enablers boycott is justified, since from their actions, they provide explicit support to our oppressors.
Which means, we are justified in withholding our monies, economically boycotting those businesses, locally and internationally, which provide tangible support for PPP and their installed President, Irfaan Ali. However, even as we show just cause for these boycotts, many amongst us, including Jermaine Figueira, have argued that our actions will suffocate Guyanese owned businesses. As a matter of fact, they further argued, many locally depend on remittances, from those very businesses destined to boycott. But the reality is, these businesses lend tangible support to a political party, that inflicts unforgivable atrocities on our people. So, while we sympathise with those who depend on the remittances, the reality is, we cannot empower these PPP enablers, with our monies.
Mark’s Take
In fact, we rather not be party to the empowering of PPP enablers, whether in Brooklyn or elsewhere. Since an empowering of PPP enablers, financially or otherwise, will translate to the empowerment of PPP. Thus, for these reasons, Benschop justifiably promoted economic boycott of the Brooklyn businesses enabling PPP. But despite his cause being clearly justified, a few pacifists and PPP apologists amongst us, rushed to lift their pens, to swiftly characterise such economic boycott as foolishly divisive. Therefore, guided by their posture, we ask these germane questions of Jermaine: Was Dr. Martin Luther King divisive when he championed boycotting? As a matter of fact, would you consider his activism foolish?