Dear Editor,
Some are treading on dangerous ground and if this course is pursued it would disqualify them from criticizing this government whenever it breaks the laws and transgresses people’s rights. The Guyana Constitution is very clear in the protection of fundamental rights and freedoms of individuals and this include the protection of freedom of association and protection from discrimination on the grounds of race. Since these rights are enshrined then they must not be violated under any guise. There are statements being made by some politicians and those who want to influence the political process that are bordering on the violations of these very rights.
We are at a point in our society where it is becoming clearer every day that those who are comfortable enjoying the rights to freedom of association and protection from discrimination on the grounds of race in their personal lives when it comes to vying for the acquisition of political power are prepared to infringe these said rights the electorate constitutionally should equally enjoy. They promote the justification for these violations in two forms: 1) For the opposition to win an Indian should be the presidential candidate and 2) the solution to Guyana’s governance crisis is to end ethnic voting.
People’s rights cannot be trampled on in the quest to remove a government, however well deserving is the government’s removal. The constitution is very clear on the qualifying conditions to aspire to the office of president, and race is not among them. Having met the constitutional requirement the next thing persons generally care about is the candidate’s background and ability supported by a programme which will offer the society opportunities to be better off than it is today. If for some reason that person happens to be an Indian or whomever, so be it, but to make race a factor in selecting a candidate is not only unconstitutional, but discriminatory. This is the conceptualization, development and implementation of a presidential system that will affect one’s constitutional rights via the expression of one’s ballot in selecting a leader of one’s choice and being able to aspire to office regardless of how qualified a person is because he happens not to be in the identified race group.
Arguing for political change through this application that tells non-Indians that in order for them to have an equal share in the nation’s resources or be able to influence its political direction an Indian has to be their leader, yet at the same time refusing to tell the Indian community that politics and development are about sound programmes and respecting the rights of all of which they too must play their part, is to seek to deny non-Indians the right to associate with leaders of their race even as you say to Indians that you respect their right to associate with and vote for persons of their race. Further, it sends a message that anti-democratic behaviour once practised by your own ethnic group is acceptable.
The solution to the country’s dismal governance cannot lie in asking people to avoid ethnic voting which falls under the right to freedom of association and has been a characteristic feature of man’s existence regardless of the society or political system. People vote their interests, however unwise others may think it is, but this is a fundamental right that is constitutionally protected. As such you cannot end discrimination against a people by asking them to accept discrimination against themselves. It is therefore time to end appeals that are constitutionally unsound. It is time to take a principled and unwavering stand against constitutional wrongs, holding this government accountable and telling the voters of your programmes for development which should also include the importance of respecting their rights and informing them of their corresponding responsibility to respect the rights of all.
When a political party forms the government it cannot manage as an exclusive group; it has to manage in the interests of all since the resources of the nation belong to all and all must equally benefit. The society must therefore turn its attacks on the anti-democratic practices of the PPP which is the source of our problems. The PPP must be held accountable for its poor governance. .
The country’s political objective as outlined in Article 13 of the constitution allows for the involvement of groups in national decision-making that impact on their lives. It also outlines the devolution of political control and the placement of power in the hands of the elected representatives, the policing of rights as represented in the Rights Commissions that still await requisite institutional support to make them effective, among other similar provisions. Thus the call for inclusive governance that respects the rights of all which already forms the foundation of our constitution should be given the opportunity to work and improve upon structures where there exist deficiencies.
Most importantly, any call for a change in the body politic should be grounded in the adherence of respecting and policing the rights of all. In this regard those who are putting themselves up for political leadership and those making the calls to improve the conditions of Guyanese are urged to remember that same cannot be achieved by disrespecting the constitutional rights of anyone.
Yours faithfully,
Lincoln Lewis
