Dear Editor,
I refer to Pro-Chancellor Misir’s letter in SN of December 25 (‘The majority opposition is not the executive’). The Pro-Chancellor says: “The majority opposition is not the executive, and, therefore, not the government; likewise, the PPP/ C government is not the legislature, and, therefore, not the parliament.“
The ‘government‘ in the United States (and indeed in every democracy) is defined as both the executive and the Congress, ie, the legislature. The Pro-Chancellor’s statement is therefore misleading and wrong. By definition, the president and his cabinet in the Westminster model constitutions cannot survive without majority parliamentary support, hence the need in cases where no majority exists for a coalition government to be formed. Guyana’s is a sort of hybrid Westminster model that does include a confidence vote, and recall legislation which does not permit parliamentarians to cross the floor and join another party.
The Pro-Chancellor also says: “Under existing constitutional arrangements and given the election outcomes on November 28 last, the PPP/C remains the ruling party with legitimacy to execute its executive responsibility; and the majority opposition has the legitimacy to effect its legislative duty.“
Forget what the constitution says. Dickens says, “The law is an ass.“ This is one case where Dickens’ aphorism is wholly true. As a practical matter (given the parliamentary practices in Guyana), an executive based on minority support in parliament is a contradiction and cannot survive, unless and until the executive works out a deal with one or the other opposition party.
When the Pro-Chancellor says that “the PPP remains the ruling party with legitimacy,“ he should know the circumstances under which this particular clause, namely, the party with the plurality of votes has the right to the presidency and to form a cabinet: it was a fraud imposed on the nation by a dictator. It is at once contradictory, unworkable and meaningless.
Dr Misir argues for the legitimacy of a document which his party once despised and campaigned against. No matter how you twist and turn this thing, as Abraham Lincoln would say, this thing is impractical and unworkable. Walter Bagehot, constitutional expert who explained constitutional principles and how they work would be turning in his grave if he only knew how these principles became corrupted in a document called the Constitution of Guyana.
The opposition parliamentarians will have to vote en bloc. Would President Ramotar expend all his time working out a deal to get the support of an opposition bloc for individual bills? Or one based on broad support for a term – for all bills, for a programme? And, doesn’t this entail the need for a coalition government (or call it what you will)?
Yours faithfully,
Mike Persaud
