Dear Editor,
The Guyana Constitution in its preamble requires us to “Forge a system of governance that promotes concerted effort and broad-based participation in national decision-making in order to develop a viable economy and a harmonious community based on democratic values, social justice, fundamental human rights, and the rule of law.”
A preamble represents the overarching spirit and intent of the people’s pursuit for development through a set of principles that would guide their relationships, the management of their business, and the security and protection of the nation-state. It is therefore important to establish from the outset what is the fundamental requirement to forge the system of governance we set ourselves.
Article 13 which outlines the ‘Objective of the political system’ expressly states, “The principal objective of the system of the State is to establish an inclusionary democracy by providing increasing opportunities for the participation of citizens, and their organisations in the management and decision-making processes of the State, with particular emphasis on those areas of decision-making that directly affect their well-being.”
It should be noted “inclusionary democracy” replaced “consultative democracy” with the 1999 constitutional reform, against the backdrop of concerns the consultative process lent to and justified exclusion of stakeholders — political and non-political. Inclusion is expected to bring about greater involvement and ensure the human rights of all in the developmental process of the people and country, that is, to be treated as equal with dignity and respect.
Article 13, which represents a declaration of intent, awaits legislation to strengthen and deepen the democratic processes of the State. 17 years after it is yet to see any meaningful action from the politicians through laws, programmes, and policies.
It is my view that where the politicians — who are representatives of the people — are failing to act, the people must demand action from them. And even as we await action on Article 13, there are several articles in the constitution, should they be presently enforced, can go a far way in making the preamble realisable.
For instance, the Executive and Legislature are the two branches of government that impact our day-to-day lives in intimate ways, yet many are unsure of their individual and collective role(s).
The Executive has day-to-day administrative responsibility for the country in conceptualising, developing and implementing policies and programmes within the confines of laws, universal declarations, international conventions and charters. This branch operates at three tiers — they are national/central, regional and local governments.
Careful examination of the Executive would see inclusion of so-called losers (i.e. opposition) in every tier. I urge a rethinking of the notion that ours is rigidly a winner-take-all system that shuts out losers, given the constitutional provisions. If we look at the United States for instance, the losing presidential candidate is excluded from the legislature and the executive.
Articles 110 and 184 place the leader of the opposition as part of the Executive. Upholding the spirit and intent of inclusion would appreciate the opposition leader’s role is not only to oppose, but to also perform oversight, propose and support.
They are instances in the constitution when specific involvements are identified, such as consultation with the President on appointment of Chancellor of the Judiciary and submission of a List for appointment of GECOM Chairman.
These approaches are intended to forge consensus through engagement and spirited debates where necessary, even as there exists recognition of the potential for disagreement. And in some instances, where such exists, the president is permitted to make stipulated independent decisions (e.g. GECOM) or work together until consensus is arrived at (e.g. Chancellor of the Judiciary).
In the Regional and Neigh-bourhood Democratic Councils, there are seats at the table, based on proportionality of the votes received, which allows for the input of all. But our politics has been hijacked by persons not seeking to forge the system of governance we set ourselves. Instead, we see acts of non-cooperation and sabotage, transgressing of rights, violating of laws, dissent or alternative views within the ranks met with rejection, and the wisdom of the opposition’s input, on both sides of the political divide, rejected.
In the Local Democratic Organs, Article 75 requires parliament providing for laws to make these bodies autono-mous. Article 76 addresses the passing of laws to raise their own revenues.
Forty-four years into this constitution, the Executive and Legislature have failed to act. There was an exception in 1990 when then PNC Minister of Regional Development Jeffrey Thomas brought a Bill to the House to give meaning to these articles. This Bill had one reading, but nothing prevents a revisiting of it.
Since 1992, there has been evident growing fluidity in which group or party holds control of the Executive and Legislature, but this reality is not being matched with corresponding respect by the politicians to respect the will of the people, their right to freedom of association and economic self-determination. These are acts that run contrary to the constitutional system of governance.
We cannot ignore that though Article 171 allows any member of the National Assembly to bring bills, motions, etc. to the House, this continues to be stymied. And this is happening out of disinterest, laziness, and/or the draftsmen treated as though they are working solely for the Executive and not the Legislature.
Parliamentary discourse and debates are also very seldom done along bi-partisan lines, since each side holds the view, it is ‘our time’, its members possess the monopoly on what is good for all, and/ or to accept the wisdom of others translates to weakness.
There are constitutional bodies to realise forging the system of governance we are entitled to, but they remain unestablished. Each constitutional body has its role and responsibility and examination of this will show intent to improve our quality of life.
For the trade union Articles 38 and 149C expressly address our duty and fundamental right in the management and decision-making processes of the State on matters affecting our constituents, who comprise past, present and potential workers.
Ours is also a duty to participate in the economic direction of the country as outlined in Article 38. Since 2000 the politicians have shut the trade unions out from exercising its constitutional duty.
As evident in Article 13, which supports the preamble under review, groups and individuals are allowed participation in management and decision-making on issues that impact their well-being.
Unfortunately, the politicians only find such involvement necessary in casting a ballot and giving blind loyalty to what they do. This the people must work to repel and demand their right be respected in every sphere of governance.
In order for the people to know what they are entitled to, they have to know what is in the constitution, and in order to know what is in the constitution, it requires public education on the constitution so healthy discussions and debates can flow. Ignorance of the constitution allows persons to run roughshod over you.
Yours faithfully,
Lincoln Lewis