By Eusi Kwayana
Reports of governmental and public shortcomings in Guyana are not many, but are important. Our elders had a word for it. “Ting nah regula!” It is an understatement that implied the need for correction. If people resident in Guyana, including administrators, dislike critical comments coming from Guyanese abroad, I can understand their response. Those at home are in the firing line of whatever goes wrong. Yet, there is just a chance that Guyanese resident elsewhere, if not deeply alienated, may have a clue. Going back to the urgent issues demanding our attention these days, namely those on which the CCJ ruled on June 18, it is important to observe that the Caribbean Court of Justice is part of Guyana’s judicial system and that it exercised its duty of ruling on disputes brought before them by our elected representatives. These rulings have been formally accepted by the parties that approached the courts and, as most people understand them, the rulings resulted from arguments freely made by learned lawyers on both sides. This does not mean an end to the disagreement between the two sides.
From the very beginning, it was clear that the date of the elections consequent on the Government’s defeat would be a conflicted issue. As readers know, the Opposition wishes the General Elections to be held as quickly as possible, that is, within three months. The Government, on the other hand, holds that there cannot be a valid election before November, five months away.
The parliamentary Opposition has been reported as saying that any longer delay will be unacceptable to it. The Government’s argument, including the claim that thousands of illicit names appear on the current voters’ list, is serious enough to receive public consideration. While I am inclined to accept this claim made by the President, I am suggesting for the second time that the Elections Commission, a constitutional organ, should itself seek to be heard by a relevant court, in order to explain its alleged inability to deliver a credible election in three months.
It is true that the Constitution initially lays down a limit of three months between defeat on a no-confidence motion and the consequent General Elections. However, the provision is not absolute. The same Constitution permits a longer hiatus or gap between the end of one Government and the beginning of another, provided the extension is supported by a two-thirds majority of the elected representatives.
We have been there before. The General Elections following those held in 1985 were due in 1990. It leaked out into the public arena that the electoral lists were greatly unreliable and needed to be cleaned up. It was on this occasion that my longest public interest fast or hunger strike took place in the name of the Working People’s Alliance. Brother Paul Tennassee, leader of the Democratic Labour Movement, joined the fast from day 1. A few male and female activists quietly observed a one or two-day fast in solidarity. The main fast lasted 13 days in protest against the irregular voters’ list. The leader of the PPP, Dr. Jagan, visited us during that fast.
As all sides seemed to agree on the need for credible electoral lists, there was no demand or campaign for the cleaning up of the lists to be rushed. As is well-known, the elections due in 1990 took place eventually in 1992, two years after their due date. These are documented facts. The two years’ delay did not hurt the PPP, which was declared winner of the elections.
I pause here to welcome the various comments on my letter published in the Stabroek News on June 22, 2019. I take them all in the spirit intended by the writers. Regarding the WPA minister, there was a report that her actions – the dismissal of three staff members shortly after she took up her position- were subject to an official inquiry which, I hope, will reveal the facts. “The price of freedom is eternal vigilance.”
I want to give my reasons for taking a position at present on the date of the elections due. No one has to preach to me about valid elections. It was I, and not the official PPP Opposition, that moved to the courts successfully in 1976 and finally in 1987 for a ruling that the Head of Government was out of order in assigning responsibility for electoral registration and local and general elections to a minister. This too is a documented fact. I seldom waste people’s time in saying this.
To its credit, the Opposition PPP, soon after the no-confidence motion had been carried in the House, had expressed its willingness to meet the Government and discuss consequences and arrangements. It seems that this offer was not followed up, or resulted in nothing.
As a member of the WPA delegated to discuss with the other political parties arrangements necessary for the 2001 elections, I argued that arrangements were incomplete. The PPP and the PNC saw this argument as coming from a position of weakness. They both insisted that they were ready for elections without further delay. The Government dissolved Parliament and the elections were on. At the end of the elections, increasing disorder prevailed with the defeated party claiming that the elections were fraudulent. The disorder took various forms, which I will not describe or recall, ending with widespread incidents of gun fire and hostility. I took the trouble to document much of this in a published book, “The Morning After”.
In my experience, I do not recall a period of greater general insecurity, fear, lack of safety and widespread danger than this period following the 2001 elections. In my opinion, the country should learn from this experience and not risk a repetition.
The CCJ has ruled that the two parties to the issues it considered should attempt to reach agreement and inform the court on June 24, that is, today, of the arrangements agreed on between them. Agreement would mean that the spirit of the Constitution is being honoured, as it will take both parties to satisfy the constitutional requirement for a two-thirds majority to extend the three months’ limit. The court has said that in the absence of an agreement, it will make its own orders. One of the Justices expressed a wish for a marriage between “principle and practicality”.
Why is agreement better for the people than disagreement? There is the outstanding claim by the Government that the electoral lists are full of errors and that cleaning them up will add two months’ waiting time to the standard three months. To brush this claim aside, we need proof or assurance that the claim is false, or that if such errors exist, they can be cleaned up in time to allow an undisputed election within three months. I shall be glad to be reminded or informed of any such assurance from any quarter. To go into an election in three months’ time, without an assurance that there can be no serious flaws in the electoral lists, the country will be walking into a blind alley.
Let us assume that the election campaign officially opens after the President has issued a proclamation for elections at the end of September, the shorter period demanded by the Opposition. The public should know that on precedents accepted by our courts, no court will consider during the election campaign any request to prevent the use of voters’ lists that any party considers to be suspect. Since the case of Petrie, in which the Government was represented by Mr. S.S. Ramphal, all matters relating to the validity of the elections must await an election petition. There will be no opportunity for rectification or correction of anything relating to the outcome of the elections until the elections are over.
My argument is simple. Since the issue of irregularity of existing lists has been raised, it seems to me, though old and in my dotage, better to deal with perceived flaws at this time, or to allow for their correction before it is too late. If elections are held without an examination of allegations made, there is no guarantee that they will disappear after the magic of a General Election. I welcome the chance to share my opinion. Two months ago, I told my eldest offspring in an interview that it would be indecent for me to insert myself at this age into the public affairs of my homeland. Now, because of the rising political temperature, I have done just that.
As many have tried to point out from time to time, our Government leaders, even as they change, seem to reserve the right to uphold the Constitution only when convenient to them. The Coalition Government was defeated on a vote of confidence, a familiar parliamentary procedure. The PPP Government of 2011 did not honour the right of the Opposition to have a vote of confidence debated. Instead of holding the debate, the PPP abused its power by proroguing or suspending the National Assembly. After a convenient period of suspension, it dissolved Parliament and called an election in 2015. This behaviour is no less a violation of the Constitution than that for which the CCJ has commented adversely on the current President’s handling of the appointment of the chair of the Elections Commission.
