Dear Editor,
It is no secret that the PPP under Dr Jagan declared the Burnham-PNC constitution illegal when undesirable changes were implemented. Established democratic and parliamentary conventions and procedures were abused and discarded. Yet the PPP under several leaders from Dr CB Jagan, Ms Janet Jagan, Mr Sam Hinds and Mr B Jagdeo have never sought to change the constitution to make it right and in line with other parliamentary democracies as seen in British Commonwealth countries.
Now we have a case where the majority of the electorate has voted for the combined opposition parties (APNU and AFC). The opposition parties are not allowed to form a coalition in order to form a government because it is prohibited by the current imposed constitution. In parliamentary democracies, opposition parties are allowed to form coalition governments if they so desire. The current ‘illegal’ constitution gives the presidency to the single party with the most votes, ie the ruling authority is given to the dominant minority.
The PPP under President Donald Ramotar wanted the privilege of also choosing the Speaker of parliament. He did this while at the same time calling for the opposition to work with him. The electorate and the large block of stay-at-home eligible voters clearly stated that they do not want more years of PPP authoritarian rule. This point seems to have escaped the PPP and the often questionable beneficiaries of its largesse.
Dr Baytoram Ramharack wrote an elegant letter (SN and KN) in support of the idea that the PPP government should have the right to select the Speaker as is the case in parliamentary democracies in the Western world. It is hard to argue with Dr Ramharack and his case of democratic traditions, but we must ask him if under the PPP over the last decade whether Guyana operated as a parliamentary democracy? Would all the excesses, abuses, illegal contracts etc, be allowed in a parliamentary democracy? Why were these critical issues never raised in parliament if Guyana was a functional democracy?
After my departure from UG in 2002, some of us have been writing about the degradations and abnormalities at UG under the watch of the PPP. In the media, I castigated the PNC for not raising the issues of education, science, research and development at UG, etc. I believe that there were two responses in the media informing me that the matter cannot be raised in parliament because the PPP controlled the majority in parliament and the matters cannot even get on the agenda.
I also wrote on the Barama and forestry issues in the local media (SN and KN). I wondered why these issues were not raised in parliament. I wrote and asked the late Ms Sheila Holder MP if the AFC could raise the issues in parliament. Her response to me was that they cannot get the issues raised in parliament because of the PPP-controlled parliament.
I have been calling for a Freedom of Information Act (FOI) to help clarify the various contentious issues plaguing Guyana. Mr Raphael Trotman (AFC) responded and worked hard on this, his efforts being stymied and made toothless by the PPP bill.
Mr Ramotar and others have repeated Dr Baytoram Ramharak’s arguments about traditions in parliamentary democracies. Would these gentlemen please tell us why in this ‘parliamentary democracy’ of Guyana, there are severe restrictions in getting radio or TV licences?
Now that Dr Ramharack has entered the political arena in Guyana, we expect him to write and call for a genuine Freedom of Information Act (FOI) as piloted by Mr Raphael Trotman which was patterned after those of other British Commonwealth parliamentary democracies. It is unfortunate that Dr Ramharack’s voice was silent during the past years of PPP misrule and injustices; and too bad he himself did not go ‘against the grain’ like the respected Mr Balram Singh Rai and speak out on the wrongs inflicted on our suffering people by those who trusted them. Our people trust us and we should honour that trust without fear or favour or else we lose their respect.
Yours faithfully,
Seelochan Beharry
