Dear Editor,
There is a healthy discussion taking place regarding the need for constitutional reform. Many acknowledge that the present constitution is a serious drag on progress and prosperity. The constitution contributes to the alienation and exclusion of many. So far the public discussion does not seem to be underpinned by core principles. What core principles should a new or significantly reformed constitution enshrine?
First, the constitution must not entrench ethnic elites. Instead, ethnic elites must face the possibility of losing an election. There must be regular turnover of government after free and fair elections. Facing no electoral consequence, elites will become complacent and less likely to accommodate transparency and accountability to the masses. Facing no electoral consequence for bad policies, they will continue to implement poor policies that are meant for meeting only elite fantasies. One example of a contemporary elite fantasy project is the destruction of an airport terminal to rebuild a fancy one, thus taking away scarce funds that could have gone towards building a deep-water harbour. Such a harbour could result in larger ships entering Guyana, thus allowing for cheaper goods that would benefit the masses.
Another contemporary elite fantasy project is the Marriott hotel, which is justified by NICIL and the Minister of Finance using the most unrealistic assumptions of the flow of future revenues. Of course, elites must use nonsensical assumptions to justify fantasy projects, which can never be justified using the most intense sensitivity analyses and cost-benefit appraisal. Owing to these assumptions, the government is forced to offer a significant discount to motivate a secret private investor to enter the deal. It means the people have lost money already on the capital side of this project. The Marriott fits in well with elite fantasy which holds that new buildings – often with limited architectural depth – indicate development. Development, however, means the enhancement of the choices and capabilities of the masses regardless of ethnic, religious, social or gender background. The gambling and high level prostitution that will eventually result do not enhance the welfare of the masses. These will not impart any technical or life skill to the masses.
Second, the party list system must never allow a political leader to select only like-minded persons to the people’s Parliament. Constitut-ional reform must allow for checks on a leader who plans to capture the political party and eventually the state apparatus and the resources of Guyana. Mr Jagdeo and his associates have chosen their own sycophantic executives, and have extended same into the Guyana Parliament and the Private Sector Commission. This has resulted in fantasy development projects and the selling out of the people’s resources to local and foreign interests with an abysmal record in democracy, transparency and accountability. There can never be development under the present arrangement, which the current constitution makes possible.
Therefore, one possibility is to allow MPs to be elected in their respective constituency, which is a form of power sharing, as independents can compete with the established political parties. Moreover, the process represents competitive power sharing instead of elite entrenchment. Some of the established ethnic elites will not want to give up privileges that they can only enjoy in the present system. The masses, however, must demand these changes. The masses must be aware of the fantasy developments Mr Jagdeo, President Ramotar and the present leadership crop in the Private Sector Commission desire.
Third, constitutional reform must reduce the powers of the executive president who must be impeachable while in government. Both Brigadier David Granger and Mr Ralph Ramkarran have called for a return to the Prime Minister as head of state. That is a good idea, in my opinion. The Prime Minister could be elected via proportional representation while the MPs are elected by first-past-the-post voting. In previous columns in Stabroek News (see SN, Feb 9, 2011), I have argued for an upper and lower House with similar voting features. The members in at least one of these could be elected via first-past-the-post in various constituencies.
Fourth, the independence of local government bodies must be guaranteed. President Ramotar and Mr Jagdeo were born and socialized in a Marxist-Stalinist world view; a view which has been projected today in the desire to control every aspect of the public service, local government and private enterprise system. This is why President Ramotar found it philosophically difficult to assent to the fourth local government bill that would allow for power to shift away from central to local government; yet another mechanism of power sharing in a democratic arrangement.
Yours faithfully,
Tarron Khemraj
