If it is the intention of the president and his government to provide maximum security for this nation, as the main law-givers whose activities are widely publicised, they should take note of how respect for the law has plummeted and of the part their actions are most likely playing in this process.
The allegations of corruption are so pervasive that they alone must have taken severe toll on the people’s perception of government. But even if we put these aside as the machinations of a frustrated opposition, for too many years the regime has been giving the people good reason for believing that it breaks our laws and traditional rules for political reasons.
The public service’s relationship with its employer, i.e. the government, is again on the front burner and it provides one of the first examples of government rule-breaking. Ever since the 1999 strike and arbitration award, the government has been refusing to take part in collective bargaining with the unions, and has made unilateral annual payouts. And the union claims that the regime has to this day not fulfilled many of the conditions of the terms of resumption of that strike. These issues affect thousands of workers and their families who become aware that the regime is not only breaking the specific agreement they signed with the unions but ILO conventions that have been ratified by our parliament and the essential moral underpinning of modern trade unionism.
If the public service problem was perhaps the first, there have been many intervening issues, for example the charges brought against Mark Benschop and Oliver Hinckson, about which the government was consistently accused of playing politics with the law. But since the 2011 general elections the situation has further deteriorated and the regime appears not to recognise the damage it is doing to the national psyche.
For example, the law states that when a Bill is passed in the National Assembly and sent to the president, he has 21 days to respond. This has nothing to do with whether or not he agrees or disagrees with the legislation. Notwithstanding this, it took the president nearly three months to return the legislation! He then proceeded to behave like the man-in-the-street and go one step further in this unacceptable direction by blandly claiming that he did not assent to the Bill because it was illegal: as if to suggest that he has the power to make a determination as to what is legal or illegal!
Another example is the way the government treats the Constitution, which is supposed to be the most sacred of our written laws. The Constitution requires that a Public Procurement Commission (PPC) be put in place to help to prevent the leakage of the people’s scarce resources and specific laws have been passed to facilitate its establishment. But we are now told that the regime has not implemented the law because it does not like it! There must be dozens of rules we individually do not like but must follow: are we to be allowed to pick and choose the rules by which we abide?
The old adage that justice needs not only to be done but also seen to be done, originates mainly from the notion that the law is nothing unless located in strong systems of moral authority and power. The time has long passed when the maintenance of social order depended essentially on brute force. Today we rely more upon our creating a mutual partnership of protection and this will not be established if respect for the law is not scrupulously observed by those who make and enforce it.
The rule of law applies where there is a perception that the government is also bound by the law, where all are equal before the law, where there is a stable law and order environment and when there are predictable and efficient judicial rulings and respect for human rights. In addition, a comprehensive body of laws, a well-functioning judicial system and an effective law enforcement agency are the institutions which are required if the rule of law is to be upheld.
“A government bound by the law must abide by the same pre-written rules as the members of society, insuring non-arbitrariness, and creating a stable environment, where capricious behavior … is avoided” (“White Paper: Building a Culture of Respect for the Rule of Law:” Open Source Software Activity, Metaparadigm Ltd., 2005 http://oss.metaparadigm.com/oss-activity/). This is a sine qua non for establishing strong respect for the rule of law among the citizenry.
Apart from the numerous daily allegations in the media about rule-breaking on the part of officialdom, which must affect public perception, three recent incidents have helped to confirm me in the opinion that disrespect for the law has become widespread.
A few weeks ago I was speaking to a middle-class young woman who, by all appearances, is doing well. She indicated that she was about to embark on a course of action and when I suggested that it might well be illegal, she firmly suggested that “since you know them, go and tell that to the government!” Not so long before that, in one of my usual drinking spots, a similar incident occurred, but this time my friends were all working class. When I said that what one of them was suggesting might be illegal, I was surprised by the unison and firmness of their collective “so what?” Then they also proceeded to harangue me about the environment of general law- breaking and corruption.
Even if one wants to put the above down to some skewed personal experiences from which one should not extrapolate, consider the travesties exposed in the Stabroek News editorial “Police shortcomings” (24/11/2013). The routine absence of the police and loss or unavailability of the necessary evidence appears to have reached epic proportions and can only be explained by a growing disrespect for the law even among those whose mandate it is to enforce it! Of course, like us, the police are socialised in the extant environment.
Adherence to the law is not a mechanical process of passing laws and people abiding by them or being forced to follow them. A strong connection between the people’s belief in the rule of law and their adherence to it has long been made. The willy-nilly breaking of the law or playing politics with it, particularly by the regime whose every activity is closely scrutinised and disseminated, sets dangerous examples that threaten the security of us all.
