Dear Editor,
As an avid boxing fan, I see the constitutional provisions of Guyana, an alleged democratic state, are akin to the laws of a well-regulated boxing match, ensuring fairness, equality, and protection for all participants. However, in Guyana, Article 142 of the Constitution—intended to protect property rights—has become a battered heavyweight boxer, pummeled by the relentless blows of a political machine that shows little regard for constitutional sanctity.
Article 142, which enshrines protection against the arbitrary deprivation of property, is a critical safeguard for individual and collective rights. Yet, its application in recent times evokes the image of a once-mighty fighter now perpetually on the proverbial ropes, struggling to fend off the unrelenting assault of political interference, executive overreach, and legislative disregard.
This constitutional heavyweight finds itself unable to effectively enforce its protective mechanisms, battered by controversial government actions that undermine property rights. The persistent abuse of compulsory acquisition laws and questionable decisions in land and property disputes have left many citizens questioning whether this provision still stands for the ideals it was designed to uphold.
The political machine, much like a heavyweight contender with no respect for the rules of the game, continues to deliver unchecked jabs and uppercuts to the integrity of the Constitution. Decisions affecting private and public property are often made in a manner that disregards transparency, consultation, and due process. The losers in this skewed fight are the citizens, whose confidence in constitutional guarantees is being eroded.
But the match does not end here. One must ask: What article is next on the boxing card? Will it be Article 147, the right to freedom of association, which safeguards the ability of individuals to form and join unions or other organizations without fear of reprisal? Recent examples of efforts to suppress labour movements and silence dissent indicate this fighter could soon find itself in the ring, taking blows from the same machine.
Consider the controversies surrounding workers’ rights to unionize and speak out against unfair labour practices.
These challenges are a stark warning that Article 147 may soon face its own bruising battle. If left unchecked, the erosion of constitutional protections like Articles 142 and 147 will weaken the entire framework of democracy in Guyana.
If Article 142 is to remain a meaningful protector of rights, it must be taken off the ropes and allowed to regain its strength. Likewise, we must prepare to defend the next fighter in the ring. Guyana’s democracy is only as strong as its Constitution. Let us not allow Article 142, or any other, to be reduced to a mere punching bag for political expediency. It is time to step into the ring not as spectators but as defenders of constitutional integrity.
Sincerely,
Keith Bernard
