Over the years, even after the 2000 revision of the Constitution that resulted from widespread consultation, many people have still been demanding root and branch reforms of what they call the ‘illegitimate 1980 Burnham Constitution’. The events during the election process earlier this year have focused attention on the need for constitutional and electoral reforms. It is, therefore, commendable that the government and the opposition have committed themselves to such reforms and that citizens are forming themselves into associations to take part in the process.
That said, it appears to me that going into the reform process the foremost and most fundamental questions that must be asked and satisfactorily answered are who are we and to what do we aspire? It is around the answers to these questions that any constitution should be built or amended. It is not unusual for persons to turn to the national motto – ‘One people, One Nation, One Destiny’ – in search for the answers. Indeed, making the opening presentations at the Ethnic Relations Commission conversation on ethnicity on 14 December, 2020, Mr. Kit Nascimento, if I understood him correctly, suggested that the ethnic problem in Guyana will only be solved when we understand and celebrate our Guyaneseness as expressed in our motto and eschew talk about being African-, Indian-, Amerindian-, etc Guyanese. The Oxford Dictionary Online says that a motto is ‘A short sentence or phrase chosen as encapsulating the beliefs or ideals of an individual, family, or institution’, and Mr. Nigel Hughes was later to rightly indicate that to him the motto is an aspiration and does not represent who we are at present. The implication is that you may be asking people to celebrate who they are not and may never become and the aspiration itself must be based upon an understanding of who we are!
For the purpose of constitution building it is vital that we understand that we are not a ‘people’ or a ‘nation.’ We are citizens of the same country, have the same passport and occupy the same geographic space, but one only has to follow the comments on social media and the results from the ballot boxes at the last elections to realise that among young and old, fellow feelings – the central ingredient of being a ‘people’ or a ‘nation’ – are seriously lacking. Our lives may be divided into public and private spheres. In, the important parts of the public sphere – the political and the economic – there are fundamental contestations based upon ethnicity. And in the private sphere, there are various churches and grapevines, the latter perennially spewing all manner of ethno/political bias. The persistent ethnic/political struggle is the driver of this unacceptable division and the motto will not begin to be realised until this struggle ceases.
The current situation makes true the 1954 conclusion of the British Guiana Constitutional Commission in the Robertson Report that, ‘We do not altogether share the confidence of the Waddington Commission that a comprehensive loyalty to British Guiana can be stimulated among peoples of such diverse origins.’ Nearly 70 years later, two Saturdays ago, Raphael Trotman of the Alliance for Change (AFC), speaking to the PPP/C in a letter in Stabroek News stated, ‘What it comes down to is that a large section, almost half of the population, will not accept you, believe your motives to be sincere, or give you their trust’ (SN: 12/12/2020). Guyana is not a ‘nation’ or a ‘people’: it is hopelessly fractured and it is upon recognition of this ‘rock’ that a constitution must be built!
A useful manual on constitutional reform, derived from considering reform efforts around the world, states that the process is multidimensional and includes legal legitimacy – gained through conformity to relevant principles, norms and legal rules, political legitimacy – reflected in the sovereign independence of the citizens in their distinct groups who adopt the constitution, and moral legitimacy – the close relationship between the constitution and the shared values that underlie the moral basis of the state. ‘In addition, the constitution may aim at goals such as societal reconciliation, forgiveness after prolonged victimization, social inclusion and moral rejuvenation of the state. … Both the process by which a constitution is built and its substantive content are the two keys to legitimacy. Yet each faces unique challenges in contexts of conflict-affected constitution building. By overcoming these challenges and remaining responsive to the context, constitution builders are able to build more legitimate constitutions’ (https://www.corteidh.or.cr/tablas/28328.pdf).
At a practical level, let us consider the formation of the oldest democratic constitution for it says a great deal about the nature of democracy and the cut and thrust of constitution building that needed to eschew political and philosophical dogma in the effort to establish a more perfect union. When in 1787 the representatives of the thirteen states met to construct the constitution of the USA, they understood themselves to be states gathered to establish a central government to better facilitate their collective requirements but wanting to maintain as much of their independence as possible. Their various sizes and economic and political orientations meant that the negotiations were going to be difficult and deep compromises would have to be made.
Among other things, the states were concerned about the possible growth of a tyrannical central government and as a result – after some 60 rounds of voting among the delegates – they agreed upon the present Electoral College mechanism and the election of the president, which are not based on majoritarian principles. Thus, today, a small state like Rhode Island has 265,000 votes per Electoral College member, while California has 718,000. The large states wanted representation in Congress based on population size while the smaller states argued for equal representation. A compromise resulted in the establishment of the House of Representatives based on population and a Senate based on equal representation. The states were quite concerned that the federal government may be tempted to intervene at its own convenience and overrule their authority. The compromise was to give specific authority to the federal government while all the other powers that were not allocated remained with the states. On the vexing issue of how slaves were to be counted for purposes of taxation and representation, after weeks of discussion the compromise was that direct taxation be according to representation and that the representation of the lower house be based on the white inhabitants and three-fifths for every slave. (https://www.archives.gov/founding-docs/more-perfect-union).
Even with the most minimal constitutional intervention citizens need to be encouraged and helped to fully participate and own the reform process and its outcomes. However, after decades of self-interested propaganda Guyanese need to be properly informed of the meaning of democratic participation and of the ethnic nature of the politics that underpin the Guyanese reality. This column holds that Guyana is not a ‘nation’ and that democratic ‘political legitimacy must adequately reflect the sovereign independence of the citizens in their distinct groups.’ This will require negotiations and agreement between representatives of these groups and final endorsement by, substantially, all of us. No one should expect sensible outcomes to be arrived at easily: the deep compromises that are required to make the reforms that are necessary for Guyana to be a properly functioning democratic state will result in a substantial political struggle. Success will depend on the political vision, will, determination and organisational capacity of the various political elites.
henryjeffrey@yahoo.comhenryjeffrey@yahoo.com
