Dear Editor,
There has been a series of letters first on the pressures of Cost of Living (COL), followed by “Shades of Autocracy,” and next by the need for “Constitutional Reform.” The debate on these subjects has been interesting but based on an academic rather than a pragmatic/empiricist approach. The masses are not accustomed to think of their needs in terms of abstract political rhetoric and sloganeering, but rather ‘bread and butter’ issues.
They want job opportunities, they want easy and ready access to health care, education, social services; safe neighbourhoods, housing, and they want fairness in resource allocation. In short, they want the good life. And they are nearing this goal with existing government’s policies and programmes. In this context, how they would respond to constitutional reform (CR) is difficult to determine. But they should be given the opportunity.
The masses are smarter now than before because of their information exposure. As the recommendations of the CRC 1999 were implemented in 2000, over 40% of the current voters have little or no knowledge of those reforms. It is important therefore that they get the opportunity to express their views to the CRC 2022.
Noted social and political commentator Mr. Ralph Ramkarran has advocated the scrapping of the current Constitutional Reform Commission (CRC) mandate, saying that it replicates the CRC 1999 Act. He lamented that even some recommendations of the 1999 CRC were not implemented, while some were not functioning. Mr. Ramkarran suggests that focus be given instead to two issues: (I) the powers of the Presidency; and (ii) creating a national inclusive governance model.
While we agree with these two issues, there are other pressing issues that must also be addressed by the CRC such as reform of the Judiciary; clearly identifying those entrenched provisions of the constitution; term limits of MPs; among others. Dr Desmond Thomas says the “main initial thrust of the CRC must be electoral reform.” Other writers extol the virtues of equity and justice.
How is the governance model created in 1999 deficient? Because (i) Opposition members are not given the position of Chair in commissions and statutory bodies; (ii) the Opposition have little say in the decision-making process; (ii) civil society groups’ views/positions are not taken into consideration in policy making; (iv)social impact statements are not done; (v) Opposition members are not invited to participate in national security matters? But isn’t the weekly interaction between the PPP/C government and the people of every community in Guyana a powerful inclusive governance mechanism?
Critics add into the governance model the idea of ‘power sharing.’ They feel that this would lead to better governance, peace, prosperity, stability, and easing of ethnic anxiety and rivalry. Not so fast! At a theoretical level, two political parties with different approaches (ideology) to development (PNCR promotes taxes and consumption, while the PPP/C promotes investment and production) could not lead to better governance, stability, and fairness. One party’s policies would take precedence.
It is this ideological difference, for example, that caused the PNCR to progressively marginalize the United Force (UF) party over ideological clashes after the 1964 elections when it (PNC) took full control of the state apparatus and introduced an autocracy. More recently, the APNU-led coalition government (2015-2020) progressively marginalized the Alliance for Change (AFC) party that led to it (AFC) losing its identity and direction. The damage done to the AFC was also reflected in the Local Government election of 2018 when the AFC failed to win any Local Authority Area. Under a different leadership, would the AFC be able to rebrand itself with the same actors?
There is a form of power sharing that exists in the appointments to the office of Chief Justice (CJ) and the Chancellor of the Judiciary (CoJ) where the Opposition Leader must consent to such appointments. This constitutional formula has failed to work for over 24 years in case of CJ and 19 years for CoJ. This is a classic case where sharing of power has not worked. A new formula must be worked out by the CRC.
The Attorney General insists that the CRC 2022 mandate is to facilitate members’ travel across the country and collect and evaluate evidence from the people. It is the people who must decide what provisions should be included or excluded from the Constitution. We, as Individuals, can present our opinions to the CRC for consideration. This is a wonderful opportunity to tap into the views of people whose attitudes and perceptions have changed over the past 2 decades in response to the rapid spread of social media and other forms of communication.
Constitutional compliance is essential to any reform. The APNU+AFC President David Granger unilaterally appointed Mr James Patterson as GECOM Chair, contrary to the constitutional formula. The PPP/C government insists that this formula to appoint the GECOM Chair worked well for 3 decades, but critics say that a new formula is required. Herein lies a compelling case for constitutional compliance and consideration of sanctions for breaches. The failure of the APNU+AFC coalition to resign in 2018 after a vote of no confidence is another case of constitutional aberration.
Should we include in CR 2022 that 33 MPs constitute a majority in a 65-chamber National Assembly to avoid future perversion of mathematics? Let the constitutional process proceed as mandated in 2022!
Sincerely
Dr Tara Singh
