Dear Editor,
I refer to the article titled, `Liberty and Justice Party sees no good future without constitutional reform’ (SN December 23). I agree; I agree without knowing (or reading) what this leader and party specifically wish to reform about the Guyana Constitution. I am sure it has to be positive, given what is there currently. This is where I stand.
My position(s) with the local constitution have been publicized time and again. All of it is negative. All of it. In a nutshell, the constitution has been this paradox: yoke, but incentive; disastrous, but delightful; deformed, but beloved. It is a national disgrace and a national abomination, which brings out the worse in all of us. Look at me and listen to my language (at this time of year), and the damn thing should be put into a bonfire. I am against burning books but will make an exception in this instance.
The Guyana Constitution, twist it or turn it, was conceived in fraud, perpetuated in fraud, and persevered with despite the nightmares, which we live and relive near continuously. Because I recognize the incomparable intellectual depth (and accompanying Machiavellian visions) of one LFS Burnham, I pause to pay homage. To a work of the dark arts. To this creation that truly belongs in the netherworld. It has made living dead and walking dead of all of us, and this is in the daytime. This constitution, in its entirety, has no place among the living. Anytime both the PPP and PNC identify anything with which both find grounds to agree (its continued existence) should warn the population as to what is in store for it.
Hence, I say this: forget about reform. The word and objectives are too limited. Scrap the whole thing and start from scratch and put it before the populace in a referendum. But start over, start fresh, and offer this nation something brand new and clean and honourable. Something that is clear and built on the backs of authentic national intellect and energies (the current one is paralyzing and degrading); driven by national visions and objectives (of how we wish to be governed); and influenced by national contexts and realities (reflective of Guyana’s peculiar demographics). I admit that this is not even touching the surface, but it is a beginning.
More specifically, I would be interested in: 1) 2-term limits on political parties at the helm, be they consecutively, or with whatever gaps, but that is it -and with this additional caveat: to return that party must be 75% reconstituted in terms of base membership; 2) provisions under which coalitions can occur, now a political fact of life in Guyana, and the associated conditions; 3) pivotal and preponderant roles for private society in oil, state agencies, and the selection of police, audit, and judiciary chiefs, to name just a few; 4) specific provisions to remove a head of state and his government; 5) punishment for any head of state (or opposition leader) for identifiable contraventions of office, and out of it, too -no statute of limitations; and 6) parties competing for seats in the national assembly must reflect the demographics of society.
Editor, this is a snapshot. And, yes, it is draconian, as it is intended to be. Citizens will decide that they can function very fluidly with such and more as guiding hand. Not seen as hanging over head but serving as welcomed guiding hand. It takes a particular kind of person, of a special calibre of integrity and character, who would not fear, and fear there must be. Government and governance and power must not be seen as cash cows, and means to mismanage money and men, while breaking the law with impunity.
There is so much that must be embedded in any constitution in terms of campaign financing, ethnic relations, judicial constructs, and interpretations. I think that any new constitution must come equipped with such interpretations. Meaning that this is what the populace has signed off on and nothing more (or less) that politicians and lawyers (mainly sleazy people) drum up for their own self-aggrandizement and self-perpetuation. And from such commonsense interpretations, any deviations in any form or degree must be deemed unconstitutional, hence illegal. I suggest an accompanying Bill of Rights, akin to the US Constitution.
Having said all this, I recognize human nature for I look at what is arguably the most sacred, most authoritative constitution on this planet, and I detect how men tie themselves into revealing knots to evade or shelter. The president’s men of Nixon’s time had to bow to the US Constitution, even though they still loved him, wanted to protect him. Today, I watch as men in that same US Congress go in the opposite direction without the personal dishonour meaning anything.
I am disturbed by this thing called a constitution, and the utter fools it has made of us before ourselves and before the whole world. I sum all of this up, in the words of a warrior turned president; regarding the former, he was peerless, as to the latter there are question marks. It was the time of a Supreme Court decision, school desegregation, and southern demagogues in Congress and southern bigots in front of school doors.
President Eisenhower had this to say: “There must be respect for the constitution -or we shall have chaos. We cannot possibly imagine a successful form of government in which every individual citizen would have the right to interpret the Constitution according to his own convictions, beliefs, and prejudices. Chaos would develop.” Here we have not had successful government, we have had such interpretations (across the leadership, where they matter), and we have lived with chaos. I rest.
Yours faithfully,
GHK Lall
