Dear Editor,
I write to endorse Prof Allisa Trotz’s call (‘The PPP has had nearly two decades to change the Burnham constutiton’ SN, Mar 7) for the political parties (and presidential candidates) to state their position on the fraudulent Burnham constitution. The Burnham constitution was proclaimed against the will of the nation and every political party opposed it (during the 1978 fraudulent referendum) and from 1980 (when it was proclaimed followed by the rigging of the elections) through to 1992. After the restoration of democracy, the tone of the language from all the parties about the constitution changed as every party saw an opportunity to use it to capture or retain office and exercise its widespread powers. The constitution served their interests, not the people’s interests.
In interviews for newspapers in the diaspora before the 1992 election, I asked the late Dr Jagan about the constitution. He repeatedly stated the constitution was illegal and would be replaced should the PPP or PCD win the elections. Bro Eusi Kwayana also echoed that sentiment in interviews with him as well as in conversations with Drs Rupert Roopnaraine and Clive Thomas with regard to the WPA’s position on it. Manzoor Nadir, Paul Tennasseee, Dr Leslie Ramsammy and other leaders of political parties also felt the constitution had to be replaced. Mr Ravi Dev and myself also wrote eloquently in several columns and commentaries why the constitution should be thrown out.
After Dr Jagan became President and I interviewed him about the constitution, he said he could not “throw away the baby with the bath water.” He argued he inherited the constitution and had to work with it and that is was not practical to change it, given other overwhelming problems his government faced. He gave the assurance that he would never use the draconian powers given the presidency by Burnham, and indeed true to his word he did not. But the issue was not just the powers granted to the executive, which are more powerful than those of the US President, and whether the powers would be abused by an office holder, but the legitimacy of the constitution. The preceding British constitution required that a change in some sections be assented to by the nation in a free and fair plebiscite. That was not done and as such a violation of the British independence constitution. No judicial authority stood up to Burnham and the constitution was foisted upon the people.
In polls I conducted from 1993 through 2003, people were opposed to the Burnham constitution and wanted to it to be put to a vote or be given a chance to choose between it and the British constitution. Only a handful of people expressed a preference for the Burnham constitution. Over 90% wanted to return to the lawful British-imposed constitution. My recollection is prior to 1992 the WPA (in discussions I had with Wazir Mohammed and Nigel Westmaas, now both professors of Politics in the US as well as in pamphlets) proposed some novel ideas to be included in constitutional reform prior to 1992. These should be looked at.
As Prof Trotz suggested, the parties and presidential candidates should outline their position on the constitution. It seems the parties are only interested in capturing office to exercise the draconian powers enshrined in the Burnham constitution. As I consistently advocated, I believe lawyers should also go to court and challenge its legitimacy. In this day and age, the Burnham constitution is unacceptable and an insult to our intelligence. We need a constitution with checks and balances that does not maximize the powers of the rulers or office holders.
Yours faithfully,
Vishnu Bisram
