Dear Editor,
Reference is made to editorial “Ramkarran and CRC” (Sep 22). The suggestion by the highly respected Senior Counsel Mr. Ralph Ramkarran that the constitution be completely abrogated and replaced is endorsed; the population has long supported its replacement since 1980 when it was promulgated without approval by the voters. But its replacement will not happen in my or Ramkarran’s lifetime although such an ideal expectation is craved by almost the entire nation except the one percent political elite.
There will be no meaningful (in fact, not any) constitutional reform by the time of the next general election due next year November). No government or political leader (Chief Executive) wants its powers reduced or curtailed. Political leaders (especially from Third World countries) always want more powers. In contrast, in studies on comparative government, White rulers always sought or seek to reduce government powers and give more power to people.
Third Word governments take the opposite position. Burnham wanted more power and first removed checks and balances to his powers in the 1964/66 independence constitution and then went for its complete replacement with that 1980 monstrous document that has burdened the nation till this day. Patrick Manning in Trinidad and Tobago also wanted to replace his nation’s constitution with a Presidential system that would enhance his powers as Chief Executive. He lost government in 2010.
Dr Jagan and the then opposition jointly opposed the July 1978 referendum to replace the Burnham amended independence constitution. The referendum was boycotted; election observers reported that less than 10% voted. But Burnham claimed a massive victory. A constitution commission was established by a Professor in New Jersey aided and abetted by a couple of lawyers who were rewarded with positions; one went on to become an international jurist in The Hague, Holland. The PPP and all the opposition parties declared and penned in their manifestos that if they were to win the 1992 elections they committed to replacing the 1980 Constitution.
After he became President in October 1992 and democracy restored, Dr. Jagan reneged on his commitment to change the Burnham constitution. It was among his tragic blunders in government. When asked by reporters when he would change the constitution, his response was to paraphrase: “I can’t throw away the baby with the bath water. I will not abuse powers granted me in the constitution”. And so we have been saddled with the monstrosity.
After the restoration of democracy in 1992, hardly anyone in the PPP ever invoked morality as a reason for replacing the constitution. The constitution was imposed on the nation without its approval. There was a fraudulent referendum. Some 90% opposed the change in 1978/1980 and a larger majority today as per surveys some years ago and recent conversation with Guyanese.
I recall a conversation with Mr. Ramkarran in passing right after the coalition assumed power in 2015. He was absolutely confident that the coalition would replace the Burnham constitution because such a commitment was in its manifesto, and it was also in the government’s interest to do so. Besides, the party made a strong commitment to so act; the public had faith in Moses Nagamootoo, Khemraj Ramjattan and the coalition. The public was betrayed. I never had the hope that the coalition would change the constitution; their behaviour in office betrayed their manifesto and other unwritten commitments especially to sugar workers and rice farmers.
Ramkarran became very disappointed with the political behaviour of the coalition. The country was also disappointed that the coalition never bothered to change the constitution although it appointed a Constitutional Reform Commission. I never harboured hopes in politicians to reduce their powers; it was never done in a Third World setting. Close friends in the PPP, from the apex downwards, are opposed to replacing the constitution. “What is wrong with the constitution”, they ask. It is morally corrupt. Aren’t politicians troubled in embracing a document that governs a country that was created from fraud? What kind of society do politicians expect to create when they embrace and defend such fraud? No wonder Guyana has been beset with so many problems.
The fact that the constitution arose out of a fraudulent referendum should trouble anyone who respects the will of voters and especially those like myself who was deeply involved in that long struggle against rigged elections. The official PNC opposition is also against replacing of the constitution; it is their creation and as such not interested in abrogating it. It will not push for any change especially if it feels it can replace the PPP in next year’s elections.
The people will have to clip the wings of politicians if they wish to empower themselves or have better governance. They must demand constitutional change and vote accordingly in any general elections. That’s not likely as the people are deeply committed to their race based parties regardless of constitution. Civic society will have to lobby the ABCE countries to pressure the politicians of both sides to bring about constitutional reform that will empower the population while reducing the powers of the politicians.
Like the coalition government, the current administration has also appointed a CRC to examine constitutional reform. With a year away till elections, it is extremely unlikely that any substantive reform can be concluded and approved within such a short timeframe. The government should do the honorable thing — urgently draft a new constitution and hold a referendum.
Or alternatively, do what the late Dr. Fenton Ramsahoye suggested: Announce that the 1980 constitution was the creation of a 1978 fraud, thereby making it illegal. This will provide legal imprimatur to return to the independence constitution. No one who respects laws will oppose such an act. Morally, that will also be the right thing for government to do. Amendments can then be made to the independence constitution until such time a new constitution is drafted and approved in a referendum by at least two thirds of the voting population.
Sincerely,
Vishnu Bisram