Dear Editor,
Lincoln Lewis engaged in some necessary pushback against the calls for constitutional reform when he accused some advocates of being ignorant of key aspects of the constitution (‘There must first be understanding of the issues before the constitution can be reformed’ SN, June 23).
The problem, however, is wider than Mr Lewis’s description. The current demands for constitutional reform are less based on inadequate knowledge of the constitution, but more based on a near absence of meaningful suggestions for changes that warrant a full-scale constitution reform process. This deficiency is not unexpected, as the sort of objective and subjective political and social conditions that fuelled the last reform process after the 1997 election are not in play today.
It bears remembering that the conditions that compelled the 1999 constitution reform process included (i) a contested 1997 national election, (ii) heightened racial tension, (iii) the reality and perception of discrimination in the allocation of land, contracts, and other state resources that, in the mind of many Guyanese, reached intolerable proportions, (iv) the reality and perception that government transparency, the rule of law and other aspects of good governance had gone to the dogs, and (v) the widely stated belief that the winner-take-all political system had failed and required replacement.
Scanning today’s political and social landscape, one sees only weak signs of these drivers of constitutional change. The bull in the china shop, in the form of a power-sharing proposal, has been put to rest, as the PPP notably, believing it can win back the government in 2020, continues to show absolutely no interest.
Furthermore, the slew of good governance measures (from establishing constitutional commissions to local government reform to increased autonomy for the judiciary and constitutional agencies) has emplaced the structure, if not produced the full substance, to address some of the critical problems identified in the lead-up to the 1999 reform process.
What then are the current calls for constitutional reform proposing beyond tightening or clarifying this or that article? What are the compelling objective and subjective conditions driving the need for change? Where are the cries of the people similar to what we saw in the aftermath of the 1997 election? Where are the letter writers and opinion leaders pushing for new models and drastic shifts? Where are the green papers from the political parties?
The answers to these questions go to the heart of the difficulty in restarting the reform process. The process is devoid not only of knowledge, as Lincoln Lewis contended, but also of fuel.
By winning the 2015 election, the supporters of the coalition partners believe they have solved the political problem in Guyana which, in their minds, took the form of a PPP government running amok with power drunkenness. By narrowly losing the 2015 election, the supporters of the PPP believe they can solve the political problem in Guyana by voting for their party to regain dominance in 2020.
In these circumstances, power-sharing will not re-emerge as a priority constitutional project until and unless one of the major parties loses power for three or more consecutive elections—and by a wide margin.
This reality should urge us to pay more attention to pulling the existing good governance levers (inclusive of effective government) to their full extent as the bird-in-hand approach to build a better Guyana.
Yours faithfully,
Sherwood Lowe