Dear Editor,
The preamble of a constitution frames its spirit and intent. For us it is to, “Forge a system of governance that promotes concerted effort and broad-based participation in national decision-making in order to develop a viable economy and a harmonious community based on democratic values, social justice, fundamental human rights, and the rule of law.” Laws are made for society and not society made for laws. In the absence of understanding the dynamics of a society, laws are dead at their heart. A principal role of the legislature is to create laws consistent with the constitution and oversee the management of the nation’s resources to ensure prudence and equity. Only in this framework can development be the achievement of all.
The ruling by acting Chief Justice (CJ) Ian Chang on whether the National Assembly has the authority to reduce or cut the National Estimates/budget has to be considered within the context of the political dynamics that currently exist, guided by the spirit and intent of the Guyana Constitution. While I have concerns about some aspects of the ruling, it is my view that it opens up the opportunity for us to examine how our National Assembly operates taking into consideration our political and cultural dynamics. To interpret the CJ’s decision in a literal sense places the society at a disadvantage.
Justice Chang in summing up says, “But, as a matter of constitutional legality, the Assembly cannot itself proceed to amend the Government’s estimates. It cannot be the fixer and approver at the same time. Even the demands of political expediency cannot justify unconstitutionality.” In considering this statement it opens the opportunity for all parties to put mechanisms in place to improve our governance system to meet the needs of the society based on the intent of the framers of the constitution, taking into consideration Article 13 which states, “The principal objective of the political system of the State is to establish an inclusionary democracy by providing increasing opportunities for the participation of citizens, and their organizations in the management and decision-making processes of the State, with particular emphasis on those areas of decision-making that directly affect their well-being.” Unfortunately, this article suffers lack of implementation given an executive that continues to make decisions inimical to the nation’s security and the wellbeing of the collective.
Further, note must be taken of the summation that “The power of the Assembly to approve (or not to approve) the Minister’s estimates simply means that the Assembly is conferred with a “gate keeping” function by the Constitution and does not imply or involve a power to amend or to adjust (cut) the estimates presented by the executive Minister. The Assembly can mark the paper for passing but it cannot amend or interfere with its contents in order for it to be passed. If it needs any correction or amendment for approval, it is the Minister who must do the correction or amendment to obtain the Assembly’s approval. Assuming for the purpose of analysis, that the Assembly were to take the view that a sum of money would be insufficient to implement a project acceptable to the Assembly and the issue becomes not that of “cutting” but of increasing the estimates. Surely, it would be the Minister who would be required to raise his estimates and not the National Assembly to effect any increase in the estimates.”
While there may be concern on the ruling, as we examine Article 171, a way forward has to be found to realise the type of governance system that can achieve our principal political objective stated in Article 13. It was not by accident our political system makes provision for regional members of parliament (MPs) who have a responsibility to represent the interest of the regions at the national level. The CJ’s ruling has made it overly important that in developing the programmes and estimates for the respective regions, these MPs must be integrally involved. And when the national estimates are presented to the National Assembly the process of shrewd negotiations must commence to make sure that the limited available resources are equitably distributed across the nation.
Budgeting and estimates cannot continue to be arrived at in the abstract or on the basis of how someone feels about a community or group of people. Our system of governance makes provision for the national budget to have its genesis in programmes developed by the Neighbourhood Democratic Councils and approved by the Regional Democratic Councils, then sent to the executive to be placed into a national budget and brought to the National Assembly at which political groups at the local government level are represented. The time has come for us to develop a People’s Budget and not an executive or PPP budget given that all members of the cabinet have sworn to uphold the constitution which does not give them the right to discriminate against any person or group.
And where there is a failure to arrive at consensus, or the pervasive culture of the minister and current executive is to say what is presented is final and must be approved, this attitude must be met with the treatment prescribed in the CJ’s ruling, to exercise “the power of the Assembly to approve (or not to approve).” Also, following from what the CJ has said the National Assembly can request the minister (author of the budget) to make necessary adjustments to the estimates. His failure to do so must be accompanied by an acceptable explanation or justification. The dogmatic politics must end and consensual politics must emerge consistent with the spirit and intent of the constitution.
The point needs to be made that the responsibility for the preparation of a national budget is that of the executive, a position I have articulated (verbally and in writing) whenever the opportunity presented itself after the 2011 elections. In this present political situation we can learn from Forbes Burnham and Cheddi Jagan where they needed each other for political, legislative and executive successes, and with regard to national security. When opportunities presented themselves both leaders made full use of them. This politics of magnanimity and shrewd negotiations must prevail.
Yours faithfully,
Lincoln Lewis
