Dear Editor,
Over the past few months there has been a discernible and justifiable effort by many enquiring into the status of constitutional reform in Guyana.
Thus far, many have had their say on the matter though more is yet to come. We should all stay tuned.
I do not believe a word uttered by either the President or Prime Minister on the subject of constitutional reform. They both have a tattered track record on many important national issues that, insofar as fulfillment of promises are concerned, their delivery has been less than stellar.
It was no less a person than Mr. Moses Nagamootoo who, following his swearing in as Prime Minister of this country as reported in SN of May 21, 2015 under the headline ‘Nagamootoo vows to bring about Constitutional change’ was quoted as saying: “ I will be fully occupied, but will pay special attention to information and constitutional reform.”
He went on:
“I want to start on humbling the powers of the President, the excess powers of the Executive and to bring about inclusion within the government system.”
High flown language indeed and spoken by a supposedly influential member of the new APNU+AFC coalition administration.
In fast forwarding to July 2017, we find that Nagamootoo’s words have yielded nothing.
Where is the April 16, 2016 report from the Steering Committee on Constitutional Reform (SCCR) set up by the PM since August 2015?
Where is the PM’s Bill promised since mid-2017, calling on the National Assembly to establish a Constitutional Reform Consultative Commission? (or will it be a constituent assembly a la Maduro in Caracas?)
Why has the Parliamentary Standing Committee for constitutional reform- a constitutional body been bypassed?
Where is the $80 million that was set aside in the 2017 budget for support to the constitutional reform process?
What has happened to the UNDP’s offer to provide technical and financial support to the constitutional reform process?
Why did the government throw cold water on and distance itself from the initiative by the Carter Center and the ABC countries to engage the public through outreach meetings on the subject of constitutional reform, the first and last being held at UG?
It is widely believed that throttling the constitutional reform process is part and parcel of a long- term 2020 electoral strategy being hatched by the coalition administration.
In the meanwhile, another vexed issue remains unresolved. In this regard, the PPP has raised its concerns if not suspicion over the delay in the selection of a new chairman for GECOM. The Party has recognized that Granger’s use of delaying tactics in the appointment of a GECOM chairman could result in a delay of the 2020 elections and eventuate in a constitutional crisis. That is but one scenario.
But irrespective of hypothetical scenarios, it is not unreasonable to assume that the APNU+AFC must be hatching a plan to stay in power beyond 2020. And the route to realize that plan will certainly not be by way of free and fair elections.
The democratic route would be considered too risky a proposition, since APNU+AFC must know that as the current no-more-than-one-term mood persists amongst the populace and mass opposition to the regime becomes widespread, the PPP/C will be back in office.
But what are the options available to government to prevent this?
One sure option currently playing out is to stagger the process of Constitutional reform in such a manner that, as we near 2020, the holding of elections will collide with the constitutional reform process. As a result elections will be postponed until such time that constitutional reform is completed. This will no doubt find favour with the Granger administration because it would win them additional years to their current tenure.
Part of the APNU+AFC’s calculus is to have a GECOM chairman in place by 2018 after much pussyfooting. The plan is to drag out the selection process by setting up first, the just established high level committee, which will achieve nothing only to be followed by other self-serving navigational structures to support filibustering, with a view to settling the matter by the last quarter of 2017, the imminent ruling of the court notwithstanding.
Yours faithfully
Clement J. Rohee
