Dear Editor,
Article 160 A (1) of the Constitution of the Cooperative Republic of Guyana provides as follows:
“all persons, institutions and political parties are prohibited from taking any action or advancing, disseminating or communicating any idea which may result in racial or ethnic division among the people.”
The foregoing is obviously not news. As a matter for probing interpretation, however, is article 161 which reads as follows:
“(i) There shall be an Elections Com-mission for Guyana consisting of a Chair-man, who shall be a full-time Chairman and shall not engage in any other form of employment, and such other members as may be appointed in accordance with the provisions of this article.”
Arguably, there can be detected a differentiation, however nuanced, that such other members (6) are not necessarily ‘full-time’ – a perspective not immediately shared by the latter over the years. That the situation is compounded by equal representation of ‘government’ and ‘opposition’ has led to a state of chronic constipation (if not hostility) in approaches to the resolution of critical election issues.
Both entrenched parties have been comfortable with the silence surrounding their tenures as Commissioners, and have adopted/voted for a comparative status of ‘permanency’ to that of the Chairmanship.
The rigidity in argumentation is consequently as ‘permanent’, and palpably predictable. If perchance there is a change of individual members, there is hardly any expectation of fresh thinking being brought to the table – a matter of discipline?
But while the Chairmanship is full-time, its incumbents have in fact been rotated with some frequency, for whatever reason.
It was the Carter Center Mission who on review, commented on the relative under-productivity of this decision-making construct, and consequently recommended a fundamental transition to a more technically oriented Commission of selected professional personnel, who would report to the National Assembly – an independence that obtains in Barbados, Jamaica and other Commonwealth countries. Its lifespan would be for a specified period (say three years) and thereafter fresh members would be recruited.
Unfortunately over the years, it did not appear to be in the interest of the respective membership teams of the Elections Commission to place the matter on their agenda for examination. Obviously, it was neither in the interest of the individuals or the parties represented. The example of intransigence went unnoticed by most local observers; but was subconsciously mimicked by party followers.
So, long after, they and we have being ruing our fate, for the outcomes of this collective selfishness must be the current woes which none of us elected to have.
Fifty or more years after, our generations appear not to be sufficiently inquisitive (or creative) to have conceived of any substantive changes in a society subject to those regional and international influences the very Constitution anticipated. Until the recent polls debacle our decision-makers appeared to have overlooked that Guyana is the virtual capital of the Caricom Region. (Our apparent self-insolation was as if we anticipated the scourge of COVID-19) What a happen-stance!
More fundamentally, how could we not be alert to the possibilities of new and transitioning political perspectives and their formal party leaderships, even though most of the latter admit to a status secondary to the two pre-eminent partners in a divisive social process.
And while there are so many imaginative variations expressed of the theme of cohesiveness, and even unity, they are nevertheless undermined by an emotional philosophy that despairs of the range of new leaderships engaging one another.
How must we react to this glaring inability of these exemplars to address such a fundamental communication faultline?
When all is said and done, the Constitution (and all of us) insists that we are One people, One nation.
But when?
Yours faithfully,
E.B. John
