Dear Editor,
I refer to SN Sunday’s Editorial titled “Ramkarran and the CRC.” In doing so, I wish to focus on five issues that fall outside the criticisms of the PPP for its “dilatoriness and slackness” and its disinterest in any fundamental reform.
The first issue concerns the suggestion that there is something indecent, even illicit, that the mandate of the current Constitution Reform Commission (CRC) is almost identical to its 1999 predecessor. I, for one, would have been most surprised if the two documents were not, in fact, identical in almost all regards. The 1999 CRC Act was passed unanimously in parliament. It enjoyed the blessings of the two main political rivals and other stakeholders. It permitted every aspect of the country’s political and social fabric to be examined. It makes full political and common sense for the 2022 CRC Act to piggyback on this existing national consensus (rare as it is) for its germination. Put differently, plagiarizing the 1999 Act (as Ramkarran unfairly describes it) was the path of least resistance.
The second issue concerns the fact that the current agenda does not include recommendations for a “national, inclusive, governance model.” Mr. Ramkarran sees this as a problem. But such language is also missing from the 1999 CRC Act. Yet, that omission prevented neither robust debate publicly within the commission nor public submissions on inclusionary democracy and power-sharing. The CRC agenda should be interpreted as ends (goals), not means. Ends, therefore, such as “improving race relations and promoting ethnic security” or ensuring “the views of minorities in the decision making process and conduct of government are given due consideration” can be achieved through several means, including through the establishment of a “national, inclusive, governance model.” As such, based on the 1999 experiences and a proper reading of the mandate of the CRC, I do not share Ramkarran’s unease.
Thirdly, I am however in full support of his call for an inquiry into the adequacy and efficacy of the 1999 constitutional amendments. In October 2019, in a letter to SN titled “We need a systematic evaluation of the 1999/2000 constitutional reforms”, I wrote: “Such an evaluation must include impact assessments and performance audits of the specially-designed agencies and mechanisms and, most definitely, must include satisfaction and perception surveys of the population. This is a massive undertaking and must be well designed and funded and expertly conducted.” Mr. Ramkarran, however, gives the misleading impression that the 2022 CRC Act does not cater for such an inquiry. It does. Apart from several general references to “review of the Constitution”, Section 7(4) specifically states that “The Commission shall have the power to conduct any inquiry or investigation within its term of reference.” Surely, a review of the previous reforms qualifies.
Fourthly, Ramkarran’s call for the scrapping of the current CRC process “since the work the CRC 2022 is required to do has already been done by the CRC 1999” is out of sync with the rest of his case. Surely, at least, we should wait on the conclusions of the very inquiry for which he advocates. That inquiry, who knows, may highlight deficiencies in and recommend improvements to the 1999 reforms.
That aside, I interpret him to be supporting his call for its scrapping also because he believes that the mandate of the current CRC does not address the powers of the President and inclusive governance. Again, once we interpret the agenda of the CRC as ends (desired futures) and not means (pathways), then all good solutions can be considered. For instance, no direct mention exists in the 1999 CRC Act on presidential powers, yet that reform process instituted the two-term presidential term limit. Indeed, it would be hard to exclude a discussion on the powers of the president once we are serious about addressing such agenda items as the full protection of fundamental rights and freedoms of Guyanese, strengthening the independence of the judiciary, and enhancing integrity in public life. Fifth and finally, Ramkarran is right to express concern over the likelihood that the current CRC process will overlap the next election campaign season. I believe however that public disinterest (his main concern) is a challenge even now outside of the election season. The CRC would have to therefore invest heavily in public education and awareness.
Sincerely,
Sherwood Lowe