Dear Editor,
The following statement is taken from an article in SN of January 17: “Caricom Council of Ministers were satisfied that the prorogation of parliament by President Ramotar was in keeping with the provisions of the Guyana constitution and did not constitute a breach of the Commonwealth Charter.”
If this statement is the true voice of Caribbean governments, it is at once disturbing, if not provocative. I feel constrained to ask: Didn’t the same constitution provide for the right to debate a no-confidence motion (NCM)? Why was the NCM not given the same consideration by the Caricom ministers? President Ramotar’s action satisfies the test (the constitution allows it). Didn’t the right to debate the NCM meet the same test (it is in the constitution)? This reminds me of the story of the ‘canny-eyed’ fowl.
The statement shows the purpose and character of the Caricom folks; they are concerned with fringe stuff, rather than issues of substance. Parliament has been closed since the end of July. There is no date for its opening (it may not be re-opened) and no date for elections. The country for all practical purposes is run by a dictator – no accountability for anything – and these Caricom folks are merely concerned with a provision in the constitution that makes no sense.
Must the constitution be treated as sacrosanct, as holy writ, while these Caricom folks cannot bring themselves to question it? It was a constitution that was foisted on the country by a dictator. The record would show that only an estimated 20 per cent of the electorate voted in the 1978 referendum that triggered the drafting of a new constitution. Any reasonable person or Ministerial Council would feel compelled and justified to question the sources of validity that flow from such a constitution. It is a universally known fact that this constitution represented a historic and gigantic fraud perpetrated on the nation.
It is understandable why the ruling party people would not want to question the historic fraud – they derive dictatorial powers from the constitution – but what is the benefit to Caricom folks? Do they feel a greater need to show solidarity with a member country’s government which is pressured to open up the parliament (shut down for the last 7 months) and govern by the rule of law?
Here we have a situation where the voices of reason represented by ABC countries’ diplomats who call for sensible action to restore normalcy and the rule of law, and opposing them is a group of Caricom ministers who choose to seek validity from the meaningless and contradictory black and white statements from the constitution without understanding how those statements came to be there in the first place. Something is very funny about this development. It is time for the prime ministers of the member states of Caricom to speak out. It is either they support the rule or law – or they don’t.
Guyana without a functioning parliament is in limbo. This country is going to hell in a hand-basket unless an election is held quickly and a new group with a proper governing mandate takes office.
Yours faithfully,
Mike Persaud
