“Governments, political parties and civil society are responsible for upholding and promoting democratic culture and practices and are accountable to the public in this regard. Parliaments and representative local governments and other forms of local governance are essential elements in the exercise of democratic governance. We support the role of the Commonwealth Ministerial Action Group to address promptly and effectively all instances of serious or persistent violations of Commonwealth values without any fear or favour.”
This quote is contained in the first principle of the Commonwealth Charter 2013 headed “DEMOCRACY”, which also recognises the inalienable rights of citizens to participate in the democratic process by way of free and fair elections.
Prorogation is only indicative of a trend towards administrative profligacy. In the first place, the regime’s financial waywardness and the opposition’s belief that it has broken the law is what led to the forging of the no-confidence motion the prorogation is attempting to avoid.
Secondly, the prorogation may be constitutional, but as we have seen above, the existence of a functioning parliament is essential to democracy as stated in the Commonwealth Charter. Furthermore, the regime has clearly breached both the constitution and the Commonwealth Charter in not holding local government elections.
Since one only requires a cursory understanding of the political situation in Guyana to appreciate that the regime has broken the Commonwealth Charter, the most sympathetic interpretation of the Guyana government’s response to the British government’s position is that like the military theorist Karl Von Clausewitz, it believes that “the best form of defense is attack”.
Thus, as Guyana itself moves closer to becoming a pariah state, the regime, by way of Dr. Roger Luncheon, has claimed that “The sentiment (of cabinet I suppose!) is that he (the British High Commissioner) needs to be accorded the status of a Pariah and his departure is eagerly awaited by the Government of Guyana”.
Dr. Luncheon told the media that “High Commissioner Ayre is terribly dishonourable, knowingly misrepresenting prorogation in Guyana as a crime” (“Guyana declares U.K. envoy ‘pariah’ over parliament shutdown comments:” Reuters, 15/01/2015). Dr. Luncheon used most of his press conference to lash out at the British High Commissioner and his statements, yet, as is not unusual with Dr. Luncheon and not surprisingly given the facts, nowhere does he tell us why the British government’s position is incorrect, and so we are left to inquire into the veracity of his position.
On 8 January 2015, Stabroek News reported that the UK Foreign Office Minister, Tobias Ellwood, stated that “The UK Government views with concern the continued prorogation of Parliament by His Excellency President Ramotar and calls for its earliest possible resumption. Parliament is required by Guyana’s Constitution and the Commonwealth Charter, it provides the necessary checks and balances and enables citizens’ voices to be heard. The suspension of Parliament therefore means that an essential element of a functioning democracy has been put on hold. We also continue to have concerns that there have been no local elections for over 20 years, which is also contrary to the democratic principles of the Commonwealth Charter and Guyana’s own Constitution” (“UK calls again for end of Parliament suspension;” SN: 8/1/2015).
This statement from the British minister cannot be faulted. Indeed, as we have seen from the quotation from the Charter above, Parliament is not only required, as the Minister stated, but essential, and not holding local government elections for 20 years must be “contrary to the democratic principles of the Commonwealth Charter and Guyana’s constitution”.
Contrary to Dr. Luncheon, High Commissioner Ayre did not “knowingly misrepresent prorogation in Guyana”. His press conference was simply an explanation and elaboration of the position taken by his minister. “The Commonwealth may impose sanctions on Guyana for its failure to hold long-delayed local government elections and lift the now two-month old suspension of Parliament, and the United Kingdom could cut back bilateral aid, according to the top British envoy here” (“Commonwealth, Britain may penalise Guyana for Parliamentary suspension, local govt elections:” Demerarawaves, 12/1/2015).
Governments are always calling out other governments for the wrongs they believe them to have done and one of the tasks of an ambassador is to clarify his government’s positions locally. The UK government took a public position on Guyana breaching the Commonwealth Charter and the High Commissioner to Guyana would have had a poor job evaluation had he not sought to clarify and elaborate on that position to the local stakeholders.
Indeed, to leave the press to indulge in all manner of speculation as to what precisely is the meaning and intention of his government would have constituted a dereliction of duty to both the British and Guyana governments and publics.
In this context, and also because Guyana has signed on to an organisation of which his head of state is the leader, the High Commissioner and his government were in order to attempt to protect the reputation of the Commonwealth. To speak of diplomatic involvement in Guyana’s internal affairs is merely a PPP propagandistic appeal to national emotionalism.
Hoping to mitigate the damaging local effect of the British position, the regime picked up on the High Commissioner’s claim that it had become “quite clear from discussions that took place in London” that Guyana is becoming a problem child for the Commonwealth.
In the false belief that its discovery had significant propaganda value, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs rushed to press with the news that when contacted, the Commonwealth Secretary General confirmed that neither his organisation nor its affiliates have had any discussion about the situation in Guyana with the British Government or its High Commissioner in Georgetown.
The possible heads up/warning given to the government of Guyana by the High Commissioner, coupled with the admission of the Commonwealth Secretary General, should make the regime more, not less, concerned. All the movers and shakers in the Commonwealth and related countries have representatives in London and the fact that the Commonwealth Secretariat is not in the loop of discussions about the situation in Guyana does not bode well.
Given the membership of the strategic Commonwealth Ministerial “Action Group” mentioned in the Charter – Cyprus, Guyana, India, New Zealand, Pakistan, Sierra Leone, Solomon Islands, Sri Lanka and Tanzania – that such side discussions may not be taking place is not at all surprising.
As a matter of fact, it may also serve to explain why, although the violation of the constitutional rights of the Guyanese people, particularly in relation to local government elections, has been a public quarrel in Guyana for some time, the “Action Group” has so far failed to take prompt and effective action “without any fear or favour”!
henryjeffrey@yahoo.com
