Dear Editor,
The Guyana Constitution is dead at its heart unless it is activated by we, the people. And what this requires is the participation and involvement of everyone whose wellbeing the Constitution impacts.
The removal of the Mace from the Speaker’s office without him being advised, before or after, and the justification by the Clerk of the National Assembly that he reports to the Auditor General for inventory, and not the Speaker, cannot be condoned. In managing, both private and state entities, much time is spent to emphasise the need for people-centred engagement as a critical component to good working relations, organisational support and development.
Regardless of whom the Clerk reports to on inventory, the parliamentary mace is housed within the Speaker’s office and it requires that he be informed before its removal. And, if, for some reason the exigency of the circumstance requires it be removed urgently, it is an obligation of the Clerk to so inform the Speaker immediately, via telephone or on arrival at the building.
The message that emanated from this issue brings into question whether the Speaker and Clerk are working together to realise the same objective. And given the nature of our political system where the legislature is an independent branch of government, these two individuals with constitutional responsibility under this branch, ought to be working hand-in-hand to ensure they execute duties and foster a relationship consistent with their responsibility.
The mace is a critical element in the convening of the National Assembly and to remove it without advising the Speaker at a time when there are different views between the Speaker and Clerk, the opposition and government, and among all parties involved, the Clerk has to be careful that he is not giving the impression that his actions are influenced by the Executive, but yet at the same time hiding behind the façade that he only reports to the Auditor General for inventory.
We are living in a real world and while the Clerk reports to the Auditor General for inventory, if for any reason that mace is missing or stolen, the Speaker in whose office it is kept, would have been equally questioned by the police. As such, on this issue the Clerk has got it all wrong. He cannot be removing the mace and being contemptuous that he can do so without advising the Speaker.
Having read the well-articulated letter of one of this nation’s respected public servants Frank Narain, retired Clerk of the National Assembly, I would like to add to the discourse (“Clerk of the National Assembly has acted impartially, correctly and fearlessly like his predecessors <http://www.stabroeknews. com/2014/opinion/letters/11/01/clerk-national-assembly-acted-impartially-correctly-fearlessly-like-predecessors/>,”
SN 1st November, 2014). In 1963, Guyana was a colonial society and governed by a different Constitution. In 1972, while Guyana was an independent nation it was also governed by a different constitution.
The 1980 Constitution entrusts the supremacy of the nation’s democratic organs to the Parliament, followed by the President and, then the Cabinet
(Article 50). In our system of
governance where legislative representation is derived through Proportional Representation, started in 1964, this branch of government represents the expressed will of all the people. In 1972, though the society was governed by a different constitution, the majority expressed will of the people was on the Executive/government side.
In 2014, and under the 1980 Constitu-tion that enshrines the supremacy of the legislature over the executive, the express-ed majority will is on the Opposition side. Governance is a dynamic process that changes based on the circumstances within the society and we have to adapt accordingly.
What we are witnessing today is a crisis in constitutional education. This nation has for years been subjected to the onslaught of constitutional demonisation. Persons have been conditioned to think that the ‘Burnham constitution’ is no good, in as much as major reforms were done in the early 2000s through a national and open process that saw the involvement of the major political parties and civil society. People have been conditioned to think that their deprivation and marginalisation and the existing poor governance are the resulting effects of a bad constitution, not an absence of militancy and holding elected officials accountable. Cries for constitutional reform have even become a rallying political talking point.
This society has been done a grave disservice by those who have dominated the national discourse on constitutional condemnation, rather than constitutional education. The truth is too many who condemn have never read the constitution or do not understand the instrument and the context within which government ought to function. The PPP has seized the opportunity of the avalanche of constitutional condemnation, mis-information and ignorance to run roughshod over this nation.
A paralysis has been created in this society. The people are caught in a conundrum, after being conditioned to despise a Constitution and given recent governance issues, the plethora of cited references to the Constitution that have highlighted the government wrongdoings. This has resulted in puzzlement of how something that has been condemned for so long can now be used as the source of right, or demands being made for adherence to it.
Matters in the past weeks, or rather, since the combined opposition has control of the legislature, had this nation, politicians and commentators pursued a path of constitutional education and put away the forage of constitutional carte blanche condemnation, things could have been different. In the coming, days, weeks and months ahead, if anything has been learnt from the unfolding of the past three years, is that constitutional education/knowledge must be placed on the national agenda as a matter of priority, since it is only through such empowerment can we guarantee our survival, peaceful co-existence, good governance and democracy.
Yours faithfully,
Lincoln Lewis
