Dear Editor,
I refer to the letter by Kamal Ramkarran (‘Governing well is not a matter of passing orders down…’ SN, July 9) in response to my letter that every civilized society has laws governing the sale of alcoholic beverages. Mr Ramkarran seems to be of the belief that my arguments concerning the current laws governing premises licensed for the sale of alcoholic beverages are indicative of some conservative ideological strain in my thinking, or that I am a teetotaller. Both are far from the truth. I continue to argue that neither Mr Ramkarran nor anyone else can produce any sociological finding from the many that have been conducted on this issue, to give legs to their position.
Mr Ramkarran’s response with the cliché like contention that “Governing is not a matter of passing laws down to be obeyed,” represents a nebulous construction of the issue, since governing well is a matter of enforcing existing laws in a manner that promotes adherence. The current government did not pass down any law. The laws under which premises are licensed to sell alcoholic beverages are the Intoxicating Liquor Licensing Act, and the Licensed Premises Act. The Minister whose actions excited this furor does not represent the passing down of a law he suddenly pulled out of his pocket. He did not impose a curfew. The government’s action is intended to enforce the legal schedule that prescribes the operating hours for businesses licensed for the retail sale of intoxicating beverages.
If people have a problem with a law, then there is an established constitutional mechanism for changing it. Guyana’s recent history is overshadowed by clamour that certain laws should be ignored or suspended because some feel they are not appropriate under existing circumstances. That led to spates of grim consequences, that will forever mar the reputation of our society.
When people select which law they feel should be enforced and which should not ‒ which is what the arguments opposing the Minister’s decision amount to ‒ they are assuming unto themselves the authority of arbitrators of how society should be structured. This is essentially the mindset within which the arguments of Mr Ramkarran have been incubated.
For some unfathomable reason or the other, Mr Ramkarran fails to grasp that he is the one making a subjective determination on this issue. Neither myself or the government can be accused of that. Both of us are following the law. My argument, in a nutshell, is that under the Laws of Guyana business premises are mandated to operate under a time-prescribed constraint. The fact that the law was not being enforced before does not give a pass to the current regime not to ensure that it is enforced under its watch. In fact one can legitimately argue that our descent into where we are today is because laws were not being enforced, and over time some have become so accustomed to this, that for them it has become the norm. And when some people have had the privilege of engaging in activities that are outside of the law over a considerable period, regardless of whether those activities involved entertainment, profit-making, or criminality, after a while they come to the misconceived notion that the privilege is theirs by some divine right. Well, societies cannot operate under that construct. Governments cannot function effectively under that construct. They cannot pick and choose which law should be enforced and which one should not.
What purpose is there in adhering to a stop sign or red traffic light if the vehicle one is in is the only one on road at the time? What about if one is late for one’s job, is late to get to the club, have a date whatever? All of the subjective and personal concepts of the extent of one’s freedom to satisfy one’s immediate need or want become the influencing agency for what one will do regardless of the prohibitions. There are laws that restrict a slew of behaviours that a significant segment of any population will feel abridges their freedom to participate or engage in some activity or the other. And we will frequently encounter resistance to authority doing what it is legally constituted to do.
It is a fact that there is a law in Guyana which regulates the operations and hours of premises licensed to sell alcoholic beverages. It is ridiculous for anyone to argue against the enforcement of such laws because to do so would be a reflection of not governing well. Governing well involves enforcing laws without favour or affection, malice or ill-will, and striving for obedience to the laws. Those avowals represent the essence of the oath of office taken by every senior government official and every law enforcement officer. When someone challenges the Minister of Public Security’s decision to enforce the regulations that are on the books, then they are implying that he should violate the oath he took. When arguments are designed to challenge the government enforcing laws that it is legally obligated to enforce, then what is being proposed is that it should govern according to the preference of what sundry segments of the population prefer, rather than within the parameters of the constitution and laws that are in existence.
Yours faithfully,
Keith R Williams