Dear Editor,
One comment, among others, sharply stands out in Mr Eusi Kwayana’s missive ‘Why can’t the opposition get the benefit of proportional representation in the cabinet?’ (SN, Mar 5) that needs amplification. Mr Kwayana wrote on the 1980 creation of a minority presidency and government: “The PNC should not feel guilty about [the 1980 constitution] because it was not their doing.” What? That is a bombshell.
My academic colleagues and myself, and I am sure the rest of the nation, are in shock and awe by this statement which is not substantiated with facts. In fact the opposite is factual. Countless articles were published locally and internationally on the fraudulent constitution being the brainchild and handiwork of Forbes Burnham and the illegal PNC regime.
Mr Kwayana was among the leading voices against the Burnham constitution that was promulgated via a rigged referendum and without the assent of the nation. Mr Kwayana’s WPA colleagues, now in partnership with the PNC, also vigorously opposed the constitution and some of them even paid with their lives for opposing the PNC. My colleagues and I picketed the Guyana Consulate on 41St Street and 3rd Ave for days during the rigged referendum in July 1978. I even joined Mr Kwayana in subsequent picketing exercises in Guyana against fraudulent rule. Dr Jagan, Dr Walter Rodney, Mr Kwayana, Dr Rupert Roopnaraine, etc, executed an effective boycott of the referendum in which some 90% of the population stayed away from the polls. Thereafter, the PPP like the WPA, DLM, and other then opposition parties, opposed the constitution describing it as illegal, like most other Guyanese. But now that the PPP is a beneficiary of it and it allows the party to govern as a minority, it has no qualms with the constitution and is in no mood to amend it. It seems Mr Kwayana too now has done a volte face on the Burnham constitution? I wonder why? I had expected him to call for its abrogation – a position he consistently advocated from 1980 until 2011.
Mr Kwayana calls for proportional representation in the cabinet. The constitution does not allow for this kind of power sharing; the party with a plurality forms the government. Had Burnham intended cabinet PR, he would have so stated in his constitution.
After all Burnham and the PNC were beneficiaries of PR in December 1964 that ousted Dr Jagan and the PPP from office. Some multi-ethnic societies like Fiji, South Africa and other parts of Africa specifically address PR power-sharing within the cabinet among parties (representing ethnic groups) even if one party wins a majority. This helps to address (reduce) ethnic conflict. And I support Mr Kwayana’s idea, but it should be done through an acceptable constitution in which the population plays a meaningful role in its creation, not one constructed by the political elite that benefits them.
Cabinet PR may be a good idea and need further discussion. If that is not possible, Mr Kwayana can join me in calling for the restoration of the 1961 or 1964 (1966) constitution that allows for PR in the cabinet (through negotiations) when no party wins a majority as happened in November 2011.
The government between December 1964 and 1967 allowed for PR in the cabinet although it did not genuinely reflect the racial composition of the population. Peter D’Aguiar (Finance Minister) and other members of the UF were included in the PNC led coalition cabinet until they were jettisoned by Burnham following the 1968 rigged elections. The PPP which won a plurality (47%) was not allowed representation in the cabinet or to be part of the government. The issue of minority governance in Guyana needs to be tackled and so far, as Mr Kwayana, stated, none of the parties is prepared to address the matter with legislation – more reason why we should return to the 1961 or 1964 constitution.
Yours faithfully,
Vishnu Bisram
