Temptation to pay little attention to the inscrutability of the governing political elite in its dealings with the selection of a new chairperson for the Guyana Elections Commission gave way to concern as I came to realise that the situation may be somewhat more complicated and possibly detrimental to the body politic.
An upper secondary school child should be able to decipher that our constitution allows three categories of persons to become the chairperson of the Guyana Elections Commission: a judge of the high court, a person qualified to be such a judge or any ‘fit and proper person’.
So President David Granger’s rejection of the list submitted to him by the leader of the opposition on the grounds ‘that none of the candidates was a former judge or someone eligible to be appointed as a judge’ (President rejects GECOM list. SN: 08/01/2017) is patently false and it must be deliberately so.
The question then arises: why has the president taken this route and what are its implications for Guyana? I will consider three of the more interesting explanations, but in my view only one necessitated the president adopting the constitutional interpretation he did.
Firstly, the constitutional framers sought, as far as possible, to ensure that a person whom both parties believe is politically neutral is selected as the chairperson of Gecom and all political parties have agreed and still claim to agree with this position.
It is argued that in keeping with this constitutional requirement, all the names on the opposition list, except possibly that of Mr. Lawrence Lachmansingh, could be and should be rejected on political grounds. In that sense, in submitting that list the leader of the opposition, Mr. Bharrat Jagdeo, was trying to decide who should be the chairperson rather than presenting the president with a wider list of neutral persons and thus a real opportunity to choose.
I believe there is some merit in this position for, intentionally or not, the opposition leader was being disingenuous. The president may have unveiled his ‘smart-man’ move and thus rightly rejected the entire list.
But this does not explain why the president did not take the moral high-ground and expose Mr. Jagdeo’s list for what it is rather than launching out on the quite unsubstantiated path that only a judge or someone qualified to be a judge could be appointed chairperson of the commission!
Then there are those who want us to focus on the personality of the president. This is a president, they contend, who is overtly formalistic, concerning himself with the renaming, reshaping and repainting all manner of towns, streets, buildings, holidays, etc..
He has now simply set his sights upon our constitution in the belief that by giving judicial position a priority in the hierarchy of who should be chairperson of Gecom, the constitution framers intended that a judge should be chosen if available.
Regardless of the weight the law must give to the three categories mentioned above, I am prepared to allow that while the framers of the constitution attempted to establish a flexible selection regime, with good reason, they also indicated a preference for a judge.
After all, the qualities required of the chairperson of Gecom should be integrity, competence and impartiality and these should also be the hall-mark of a seasoned judge.
Notwithstanding the universal disapprobation of lawyers, even if initially lacking in some of the requisite virtues, it is to be hoped that by the time they are appointed to the High Court judiciary, these virtues would have become ingrained. This is far less likely to be the case in the career path of a veterinary doctor, an army officer and, most questionable of all, a diplomat!
If the above was the thinking of the president, he should have explained his position more adequately to the populace and this explanation can also credibly stand on its own without aid from the misguided notion that only a judge or person qualified to be a judge can be appointed.
Furthermore, whatever was his intention, once it veered from the constitution and precedents, he should have outlined the approach he intended to take in his letter of invitation to the leader of the opposition to present him with a list.
Finally, Article 161(2) of the constitution states, ‘Provided that if the Leader of the Opposition fails to submit a list as provided for, the President shall appoint a person who holds or has held office as a judge … in some part of the Commonwealth … or who is qualified to be appointed as any such judge.’
There are those, particularly in the opposition, who believe that the president’s position: ‘is the beginning of an elaborate plan to rig the next elections.
We feel that the President is laying the foundation for the unilateral appointment of a Chairman of GECOM of his own choosing (PPP condemns President’s rejection of GECOM list. SN 10/01/2017).
According to this way of thinking, due to its behaviour since coming to office, the regime has already lost the small majority that brought it to government and must now manipulate the coming elections if it is to stay in government.
Accordingly, the regime now hopes to provoke a situation whereby the opposition leader refuses to produce a list or provides one not in keeping with the president’s interpretation, thus allowing the latter to make a unilateral choice. Unlike the other positions discussed, this interpretation certainly requires some adherence to the president’s false interpretation of the constitutional provisions.
If the intention of the government is to unilaterally select its own chairperson and it proceeds along this course, it will open an entirely new politically disruptive trajectory for Guyana.
Only two years old, the APNU+AFC regime will immediately send a message that it intends to compromise the coming elections and as such will immediately lose most of its political legitimacy and the vast majority of the fair minded, middle group, who brought it to office by rejecting similar atrocious behaviour on the part of the PPP/C.
This would make its effort to stay in government, by whatever means it chooses, even more difficult. Be not mistaken, the opposition will have many means of protest from which to choose.
In modern times, political protest does not necessitate going on the streets: there are more than 100 options from which to choose.
Given the opportunities to learn from our past, it is to be sincerely hoped that the coalition, which came to power to bring solace and development for all Guyanese, is not set upon a path that would be even more foolish and disruptive than the PPP/C’s attempt to establish political dominance.
