After all the patter about inclusion and constitutional reform to which the public has been treated by President Irfaan Ali, the evidence that these statements are to be invested with any substance is scant. In the most recent example the government delayed engaging the nurses after they threatened to strike because they were represented by what Freedom House regarded as a highly politicised opposition union. Since the administration failed to distinguish between genuine grievances and what they saw as the political intentions of the GPSU, the nurses were initially written off as having been incited by political forces. All that can be said is that if the government was reluctant to speak to an opposition union, they should not be surprised if in the process they have conveyed the impression that they do not want to speak to the opposition per se.
Last week President Ali was quoted as saying: “We intend to fashion a more inclusive system of governance and, especially, to fortify our democratic institutions so that never again will our people’s freedom be subject to the threat of being hijacked.” The second part of the quote seems to refer to the attempts to rig the results of this year’s election, although how he intends to shield the country from that in future was not spelt out. Given that several employees of Gecom have already been charged by the police in connection with those events, it might be argued that this on its own might serve as a sufficient deterrent, although as Mr Ralph Ramkarran has suggested, very heavy penalties could be legislated for.
In his column in this newspaper last week, he also directed attention to the possibility of dismantling the immunity of the President and passing legislation “to provide penalties against a president and cabinet ministers who defy the Constitution.” However, as he noted, the PPP is “terrified” of dispensing with presidential immunities, although their antipathy could perhaps be assuaged if it was only a matter of excluding immunity where the president “fails to perform acts” which are required by the Constitution.
As has been observed more times than anyone cares to mention, including by a succession of international election observers, Gecom should not be a political body. However, it is not just the PPP which would have it no other way than it is, but APNU as well. One suspects that before any fundamental reform of the elections commission could be undertaken there would have to be a level of agreement between the two largest parties across a much wider front. In other words, it would probably have to be pursued within the context of a larger renovation of the Constitution.
As for the President’s reference to fashioning a “more inclusive system of governance,” he is not following this up in a way which gives credence to his words. This was already apparent early last month after the government did not appoint members of the opposition to five state boards, as required. The excuse given by Minister Gail Teixeira at the time was that the opposition was refusing to recognise the government as legal. This position has now been officially enunciated by the head of state himself, who said recently in an interview published by the Office of the President, “Mr Harmon must be honest enough to go out to the public and say the PPP has been legitimately elected and it is the recognized Government of Guyana and then we’ll talk … This is a legitimately elected government … if you don’t recognise me you can’t come to talk to me.”
This is all very tiresome. The PPP knows quite well that it would be humiliating for APNU to make a public declaration at this point, their misdeeds notwithstanding, and in any case, as long as they are in Parliament and are fulfilling their obligations as an opposition party under the Constitution why does Freedom House have to insist on triumphalist gestures? Mr Joseph Harmon was quick to point out the hypocrisy of their position when he reminded them that for months in 2015 they had maintained that the then government was illegitimate, quoting news articles in his support. He might have added that up to the middle of this year their former president, Mr Donald Ramotar was still claiming in letters to the press that APNU had rigged the 2015 election, apparently oblivious to the fact that he was in the process undermining the international observers who had deemed it free and fair.
In addition, Mr Harmon adverted to the requirements of the Constitution. “The Constitution specifically requires that there be consultation with the Leader of the Opposition by the President in the appointment of a number of constitutional office holders. No precondition is attached,” he said, and identified several of these offices, including that of the Chancellor, Chief Justice and Ombudsman. While this is true, no one forgets former President Granger’s unconstitutional approach to such consultation, particularly as it applied to the Gecom Chair appointment.
Contradictions in terms of public positions and behaviour, of course, have never proved an insuperable barrier to either of our main parties when trying to promote their own supposed virtues. At the moment, however, it is the PPP/C which is in office and has its hands on the levers of power, so it is the one which needs to be generous in the first instance. If it is seen to be petty, not only is that bad for the nation, but it cannot then blame the opposition for the latter’s lack of willingness to cooperate. If, on the other hand, it is making genuine attempts to be inclusive and the opposition does not respond, then it is APNU+AFC which must accept the opprobrium for being small-minded and indifferent to the future of the country.
When it comes to the Constitution, AG Anil Nandlall might have been the hard-liner on the nurses’ issue, but he was all expansiveness in Parliament last month when talking about reforming the nation’s framework document on which, he said, work would begin shortly. This task would fall to the National Assembly’s Standing Committee on Constitutional Reform, and we reported him as saying that the process would be driven by a very broad-based vehicle comprising government and opposition on the one hand and civil society on the other, with nationwide consultations. So here we have another contradiction: the government will have to talk to the opposition within the confines of the Standing Committee, but yet won’t talk to them outside that framework. Discussing the Constitution at any level requires a willingness to listen to the other side, whoever that side might be, and if the government is putting conditions on that, then there is little hope for progress.
On the opposite benches, Mr Harmon told the House that constitutional reform should be given “priority”, and that there was also need for electoral reforms. Since both sides in their public pronouncements, at least, seem to be in agreement on the matter of the need to look at the Constitution again, there is really no excuse for putting impediments in the way of meaningful exchanges. President Ali and his administration therefore should stop insisting that the opposition make some kind of public acknowledgement that they are a legal government, while Mr Harmon should stop insisting at every available opportunity that the government is illegal. Those claims are for the courtroom, not the political arena, and all he is doing is poisoning the atmosphere for meaningful debate. Serious constitutional discussions require a less abrasive context than the one he is creating. How both sides proceed will tell us a lot about how genuine they are in seeking reform.
