Dear Editor,
Reference is made to Mr Ralph Ramkarran’s article ‘No statesman-like discourse is heard above the din’ (Sunday Stabroek, November 10). In reaction to his call for the return to the full Westminster system it can only be said that some see it as the source of our political problem, or some are admitting no system is perfect. Either way, Guyanese have to settle for something higher than their individual self to which all can commit allegiance.
The call by some for adherence to the rule of law is a clarion one and has greater potential, were we as a nation to collectively uphold it, than the back and forth of rejecting and embracing the Westminster model when a perceived crisis arises, that has now lost all appearance of seriously solving the nation’s woes.
President Ramotar’s promise to examine his party and government’s relationship with the opposition placed in proper context is not a result of the minority status of his administration. The context in which the President made his statement was the government side in the National Assembly not being able to get its way in passing the amendment to the Anti-Money Laundering Bill (AML). A closer examination of this problem reveals that while both sides made various claims, the fact that the Special Select Committee wrapped up its discussion minus the input of the opposition and the government brought it to the floor for a vote with the expectation the opposition would comply was an error of judgment and showed disregard for inclusionary procedure.
In both instances had the President and the government side respected the rules that guide the National Assembly’s behaviour, it would have created another narrative. Clearly, this does not present the need to abolish a system, but the need to obey and respect it. In this context too, the argument that a constitutional change will guarantee the formation of a government based on a coalition after the votes are counted does not in itself guarantee a change of behaviour. Our parliamentary structure is made up of two sides ‒ government and opposition ‒ and if there are those in the government majority (within a coalition) sharing a similar contemptuous view of the National Assembly’s procedures and the role of government in relation to its people, then the AML would have passed without the input of the opposition minority. And given what the AML sets out to achieve in this instance, the country has to be grateful to the opposition majority.
Some may find it hard to admit, although admit it we must if we want to proceed, but there are some in our political leadership who only respect laws, rules and procedures when these work for them. And this is not unique to the government side. It is an ugly side of human behaviour that we have to constantly guard against and contain.
It matters not whether Guyana returns to ceremonial head called the president, or the head of government is called a prime minister. If the role of the proposed prime minister is the same as the current president, then it matters not. Or if the president, in his ceremonial role, also has responsibility to sign Bills into law, if he is prone to behave like Guyana’s two recent presidents, then we are back to square one. The manifestation of the same behaviour continues, only now it is being spread around.
Having situated the present conflict, Mr Ramkarran has not stated how a coalition government via constitutional reform would ensure adherence to laws, procedures and rules, from which the current conflict resulted and which remains the crux of Guyana’s problem.
And were we to have the special select committee operate with respect for the opposition, after which the work could have been brought to the floor, there was still a possibility of it being rejected if the opposition or government side disagreed, or it could have been passed if there was agreement at the committee level. Or, it could have been passed unanimously by the National Assembly and the President refused assent as he has done with the Local Government (Amendment) Bill unanimously passed by both sides of the National Assembly
We are right back where we started ‒ the political leadership has many persons who only care about laws, rules and procedures when these work for them. And each day it becomes clearer that the answer to our woes is not in rules, laws and procedures. The answer to our woes is adherence to rules, laws and procedures. But would the media facilitate and/or join those are pushing for these, and will the politicians listen to those who are calling for them. Would the society collectively demand they do? Would this new approach be given a try?
Yours faithfully,
Minette Bacchus
