Dear Editor,
Last week I wrote on national uni-ty. The gravamen of my contention was expressed thus: “Though they may number in the hundreds, if not thousands, not one of those chanting the mantra of ‘national unity’, at least as far as I can recall, has taken the time and energy to articulate in a document for public scrutiny, what this concept connotes, how it can be achieved and how will it manifest itself practically, pragmatically and politically.”
Obviously, I was not proficient enough. I was, unfortunately, misinterpreted in certain quarters to be critical of national unity and was misconstrued as an obstructionist to any engagement between the opposition and the government intended to pursue that goal. All I did was to explain that the protagonists of national unity have abysmally failed to articulate its nature and purport and how it will manifest itself. Perhaps, a more detailed explanation from me is necessary.
Currently, we have an executive President-modified version of the Westminster constitutional model of which the doctrine of separation of powers forms the foundation, and where governmental power is constitutionally devolved, broadly, into three organs, namely, the executive, legislature and the judiciary with a series of checks and balances built in the constitution itself, which ensures functional independence and autonomy in the discharge of certain responsibilities of identified constitutional bodies, and where a multi-party political system is accommodated and democratically allowed to play a part commensurate with the popular support it enjoys as determined at elections held every five years.
From the bits and pieces I have gathered from the proponents of national unity/national front government, concepts which incidentally are unwittingly used interchangeably, though conceptually different, they are advocating the formation of a singular government comprising all the major political parties, including the PPP, APNU and AFC. A natural consequence will be the creation of a wholly and radically different governmental and constitutional structure from that which now exists. Indeed, inevitably, such a model of government will result in the creation of a one-party state, à la Cuba and China.
The proponents of this concept, either by design or through a lack of foresight, are not disclosing this aftermath to the public and the consequences which are likely to flow therefrom. I am unaware of such a model of government in the British Commonwealth. In this one-party state, I surmise that there will be no opposition in the Parliament; so there will be no parliamentary scrutiny of public expenditure by the executive and there will be no need for the executive to account to the National Assembly on either policy or finances, more specifically, through the Committee of Supply, the Public Accounts Committee or any of the standing and sectoral committees in the National Assembly; so the parliamentary committee system will be-come sterile. Indeed, Parliament will be a very placid and docile institution performing only a law-making function and not an accountability one. Even in the discharge of the law-making function there will be no opposition.
In this new dispensation, the office of the Auditor General will become irrelevant because there will be no opposition to scrutinize the Auditor General’s report in order to hold the executive accountable for public expenditure. The constitutional service commissions, whose composition comes from a process which yields nominees from both the president and the leader of the opposition, and which perform an important check against executive abuse of power, will all become impotent and incompetent because there will be no opposition.
These commissions, if they continue to exist at all, will therefore be comprised, presumably, of only government nominees and will therefore lose their functional independence. Significantly, in the absence of an opposition, I do not know through what process judges will be appointed and consequently, what quality of independence the judiciary would enjoy. So this pivotal institution to which the citizenry can turn for protection against abuse of their constitutional rights and freedoms and against abuse of executive power will no longer be able to guarantee independent decisions and deliver justice in accordance with law and free from political and other influences.
The constitutional rights commissions will be another casualty because they are constituted by a parliamentary driven process with an opposition input similar to that of the service commissions, but with an additional input from civil society organizations.
This is yet another check against executive power. Since there would be no opposition in Parliament, these commissions will lose their efficacy and functional autonomy and will practically become obsolete. I can continue to give more examples. I have, thus far, only touched the tip of the iceberg. But I believe that I have made the point, at least, to the intelligent reader.
The advocates of a national front/national unity government, therefore, have a duty to explain whether they are agitating for the creation of a system of government devoid of those checks and balances and if not, who will perform those checks and balances and how it will be done. Hence, my call for a White Paper on the concept. In any event, a referendum is a mandatory course of action which must be embarked upon to effect the fundamental constitutional changes which are requisite in order to make national front/national unity government a reality. So the populace will have to decide and they must be adequately informed about the decision that they are being asked to make and its consequences. Therefore, voluminous information must become publicly available to, and accessible by the masses.
Advocates of a national unity/national front government, therefore, cannot continue to mindlessly invoke the names and works of Cheddi Jagan and Forbes Burnham as architects of such a formula and as a camouflage for their own failures to articulate how this formula will manifest itself, and the benefits that it will bring to the people of Guyana, which incidentally, must far outweigh its inherent dangers. If they are serious, they must put pen to paper now. It is a task which requires both scholarship and erudition. I doubt not their capabilities.
Yours faithfully,
Mohabir Anil Nandlall, MP
