Dear Editor,
In every society, the reality of decision-making falls far short of the democratic ideal in countless ways; Guyana is no exception. A big part of the solution lies in a sound democratic constitutional framework and full adherence to the rule of law.
That is why Guyana has Article 161 of the Constitution. The Constitution is framed in a spirit of collaboration but with clear responsibility for respective stakeholders. Let Mr. David Granger not confuse you, fellow Guyanese, this article is the principal vehicle by which a GECOM Chairman is appointed.
While Mr. Bharrat Jagdeo should engage with Mr. Granger and maybe even consider his suggestions of persons for inclusion on the officially submitted list of six, let me be clear, the constitutional responsibility for the assembly and submission of those six names lies singularly with the Leader of the Opposition.
Thus this idea of suggesting eight names by Mr. Granger to Mr. Jagdeo for consideration and possible inclusion into the final list of six, comes with some responsibility. Mr. Granger cannot and must not be taken seriously if he suggests names that are PNC activists, quasi PNC activists, persons with a deep history of strong PNC loyalties and persons who are clearly politically partisan in favour of the PNC. One of them even ran for the leadership of the PNC. What is almost laughable is the inclusion of Mr. James Patterson’s name on Mr. Granger’s list. Is this not what Guyanese call “eyes pass”?
The Constitution by way of Article 161 clearly outlines the roadmap to the solution on this GECOM Chairmanship issue. But Mr. Granger will have none of it. His actions inform the nation that you either play this game of “GAM” with his marbles or there will be no game at all.
If one listens to the unreliable words of Mr. Granger, he says “it is clear that elections have to be held at the shortest possible time and it is crucial to appoint a GECOM Chairman” and then he slides into the “but” and that is when his true intent is revealed. He even teases the Guyanese people by promising that “this can be done as early as Monday”.
The past practice remains that GECOM usually advises on the elections timetable and the Head of State acts on that advice. However, GECOM cannot offer such a piece of advice without a Chairman in place. But think of the following carefully:
1. Who is responsible for the extraction of one of the six names in order to appoint
a GECOM Chairman? Mr. Granger.
2. Who has been rejecting the names Mr. Jagdeo has been submitting for the
position of GECOM Chairman on several occasions? Mr. Granger.
3. So who is stalling on the appointment of the GECOM Chairman? Mr. Granger.
4. So who is stalling on calling the elections? Mr. Granger.
Yours faithfully,
Sasenarine Singh
