Dr Bertrand Ramcharan, Ph.D. (LSE), Barrister-at-Law, is a former UN High Commissioner for Human Rights, Chancellor of the University of Guyana, Commissioner of the International Commission of Jurists and Professor at the Geneva Graduate Institute of International and Development Studies. He is one of the founders of the newly-established Guyana Institute of Public Policy, of which he is a Director. The Institute aims to generate thinking on issues that can help in the future cohesion and development of Guyana.
By Dr Bertie Ramcharan
Guyana is not doing as well as it could, and the crucial issue is the system of governance. Every four or five years, around election time, we fall into crisis and, many times, violence. Our development is hobbled by this. We can avoid this in the future.
Proposals and views on power-sharing are many. Some are well meant, and some are partisan; they may be well received in some quarters while, in others, they may be received negatively for partisan reasons. We need to analyze our situation from scratch, and not lock ourselves into views on the independence constitution, the Burnham constitution, the revised constitution after the reforms around the turn of the century; or diverse formulas for ‘power-sharing’. The crucial concept should be inclusive governance.
Guyana is a plural nation and we need to proceed from constitutional recognition of this plurality. During the wars in the former Yugoslavia this writer spent four years with the peacemakers and peacekeepers as Director of the International Conference that led peace efforts in the Balkans. In the former Yugoslavia, Bosnia in particular, they had the concept of ‘constituent peoples’, and the present constitution of Bosnia recognizes three constituent peoples, Bosniaks, Serbs, and Croats. The concept of constituent peoples may be found in other parts of the world.
In Guyana it would be helpful for the constitution to recognize constituent peoples. These would certainly include the indigenous Amerindian people, the Afro-Guyanese people, and the Indo-Guyanese people. There could be discussion about recognizing other constituent peoples, such as Portuguese, Chinese, and people of mixed ancestry. The numbers of Portuguese and Chinese, which were small from the outset, have dwindled due to emigration. The number of people of mixed ancestry is sizeable. It could be justified to recognize them as a constituent people, but political choices are needed in national constitution-making and it would probably simplify matters to recognize three constituent peoples.
The recognition of three constituent peoples requires, practically, that they must see themselves reflected in the governance arrangements in the country. There are different ways of achieving this. Guyana now has an Executive Presidency. This should change to a patriotic presidency, rotating annually. Each year, in turn, the presidency should pass to an Amerindian Guyanese, an Afro-Guyanese, an Indo-Guyanese, in that order of rotation. People of mixed ancestry can self-identify under one of these three categories.
Bosnia has a collective, three-person Presidency, consisting of a representative of each of the founding people. The presidency there is more of an executive presidency and the collective nature has given rise to problems. Guyana does not need a collective, executive presidency. A patriotic presidency, rotating annually would be preferable. The rotating president would be chosen from among those elected to parliament. Consultations among the parties represented in parliament should facilitate the selection of the president. The Swiss have an annual, rotating presidency. It works well.
Guyana has a system of proportional representation at the national level. The constituency system has broken down. The system of proportional representation should be retained as it would be too divisive to change it now. However, proportional representation should operate at the regional level. Parties vying for election in a region would name their electoral candidates and named candidates would be elected according to the number of votes their parties receive. This would establish a bond between elected parliamentarians and their constituents, and would break the stranglehold of party leaders who now determine which of the persons on their lists sit in Parliament. This is not only undemocratic, it is inefficient.
There are details to be worked out, to be negotiated, particularly the allocation of seats among the regions. An independent commission could study this and make proposals.
The number and name of Ministries should be designated in the constitution. A small country like Guyana does not need a large amount of Ministries. The President of the country would call upon the party with the largest number of seats in the Parliament to designate a Prime Minister. Ministers of Government would be distributed among the parties represented in parliament according to the percentage of their numbers in Parliament. The Prime Minister would negotiate the sharing of ministries and the President would decide on ministerial allocations if need be.
Guyana needs one strong national human rights commission. It can have different chambers, if desired. UN advisers can be asked to offer the blueprint of such a commission.
The system of local government can be negotiated in a second stage after the national constitutional changes have been settled and a new system of inclusive governance introduced. A Presidential Commission on local governance can be established to make recommendations.
The ideas advanced above are not taken out of thin air. They are based on the structural realities in Guyana and are designed to turn those realities into positive attributes. Guyana originally belonged to its indigenous people but they are still among the most disadvantaged group in the country. They are now pressing their case for communal and land rights and for their needs to be addressed. This should be a national priority. Their story has not been adequately told in our historiography. Walter Rodney, in his history of the Guyanese working people, dealt with the aspirations of Afro-Guyanese for dignity and traced instances of working class cooperation between Afro- and Indo-Guyanese in the early years of the country. Eusi Kwayana, in his book, The Morning After, cites a feeling among some Afro-Guyanese nationals that, as a people who were here well before the Indians, their historic contribution and status must be recognized. We should be ready to talk openly about these things in a spirit of national dialogue. Dale Bisnauth, in his history of indentureship in Guyana, analysed the factors that led to distinctive cultural development among different groups of Guyanese, especially the Indians. He noted a movement back to their culture in recent decades. At the same, all Guyanese share some distinctive Guyanese traits. He correctly argues that nation-building must proceed on the basis of recognition of the cultural aspirations of all of Guyana’s people. Here again, we must be ready to discuss these issues in open dialogue.
Jamaica’s national motto is ‘Out of many, one people.’ It is inspiring. Guyana’s motto is ‘One nation, one people, one destiny’. Yes, we are one nation; we are one people; and we have one destiny. But our destiny will be better moulded by recognizing our cultural attributes and turning them into strengths. We must build our constitutional structure on recognition of our historical and cultural factors.
The ideas for inclusive governance advanced in this essay have this in view. These are fundamental, but simple, structural ideas. A short bill in Parliament, endorsed subsequently by referendum, cannot be difficult to achieve if Guyanese want it in large numbers. The legislation can be quite simple:
“The Constitution of Guyana shall be modified to provide, immediately after endorsement in a referendum, as follows:
Guyana is a nation of constituent peoples, notably Amerindians, Afro-.Guyanese and Indo-Guyanese. The culture of all constituent peoples shall be fostered.
Guyana shall henceforth have a President who shall serve as the political and moral leader of the nation. The President will be elected annually in Parliament from among the parliamentarians, with high consideration being given to the designation of a female president.. The Presidency shall rotate annually, in this order, among an Amerindian, an Afro-Guyanese, an Indo-Guyanese. Persons of mixed ancestry are eligible to serve as President under one of these categories, on the basis of self-identification.
Parliament shall be constituted of X persons elected under a system of proportional representation in each of Guyana’s ten regions. The persons sitting in parliament shall be those elected in the regions in accordance with the number of votes received by their parties.
The Prime Minister shall be selected by the President from among the parliamentarians of the party with the highest number of seats in the parliament.
The Ministers of Government shall be X in number and shall be drawn from among Members of Parliament in proportion to the number of parliamentary seats held by their party. At the start of each Parliament, the President, after consulting the Prime Minister and the leaders of the parties represented in Parliament, shall decide on the allocation of core Ministries among the parties represented in Parliament.
Guyana shall have a strong national commission for the promotion and protection of human rights. The UN Secretary-General shall be invited to designate an international expert who would draw up the mandate of the Commission for endorsement by Parliament.
A Presidential Commission shall be established to make recommendations for consideration by Parliament on the system of local governance. Parliament shall decide on this within three years.
Let us start anew, Guyana; and let us turn our cultural diversity into strengths in our future constitutional structure. Let us build for the future, rich cultures, constituent peoples, one nation, one people nationally, one destiny.
The future beckons.
