Dear Editor,
Mr Vishnu Bisram claimed that “In his letter … Dr Henry Jeffrey is deceiving readers by insinuating the current constitution is a PPP one simply because the PPP has not taken measures to amend or replace it.” (‘The changes made to the constitution came from a consensus between all parties’ SN, February 20). What I said was that: “The present PPP constitution was completed in a more-or-less free and open political environment in which all of us (including Mr Bisram and I), in government, opposition and civil society, either directly or through our representatives could have attempted to make an input to change those aspects of the Burnham constitution that we now find abhorrent. Yet throughout that process … so far as I am aware, not much was made of these aspects of the Burnham constitution by anyone.” I hope that the difference in the two statements is obvious.
In a democratic society, no group should expect to get its own way on every position; compromise is the key. What was necessary if Mr Bisram wanted to show that the PPP did not adopt our present constitution was for him to indicate when, during the constitutional process, the PPP “attempted” to place on the table and staunchly supported amendments that would have removed the abhorrent aspects of the Burnham constitution.
Following Mr Bisram’s line of thinking, I was inclined to believe that the PPP was too petrified of the PNC to do even this! However, now, contrary to Mr Bisram, Mr Aubrey Norton tells us that the PPP was “not disposed to reduce the power of the President which they criticised while in opposition … and … resented deep-rooted changes” (‘The PPP should take some credit for the present constitution’ SN, February 21).
Mr Bisram’s presentation is replete with misconceived, inconsistent and simply factual errors. These aside, I made the above point in the hope of steering him from his apparent inherent belief that every political act is materially self-interested. As examples, according to him, President Desmond Hoyte and the Alliance for Change supported the present constitution because they hope one day to benefit from its dictatorial characteristic!
This is in spite of the fact that since the publication of its 2006 Action Plan, the AFC has committed itself to making constitutional changes along very much the same lines as proposed by Mr Bisram, and Mr Hoyte, knowing full well that the PNC had little hope of winning an election, maintained his belief in the present constitution for a decade in opposition.
I believe that this discourse is useful because if Mr Bisram and others could reduce the pervasiveness of a mindset which is located in the negative aspects of the Burnham/PNC mosaic, and which conjures numerous self-interested absurdities, they might better comprehend our context. They might come to realise that many people, including Mr Bisram, may still not be certain how to properly align their desire for good governance with the political nature of our society. For had he clearly understood this when he recommended that we should be presented with constitutional alternatives from which to “choose one by majority vote,” he would have emphasized that that majority should consist of “substantially all” of us.
Yours faithfully,
Henry Jeffrey
