Does the constitutional term limits provision need to be reviewed?

Dear Editor,

The philistines are running amuck in my country. They are, true to form, simply enjoying a spurious opportunity lambasting the government, more especially the stalwart President Bharrat Jagdeo.

Magnanimity is consciously spurned in bare-faced misperceptions of the undoubted palpable successes of the Jagdeo years, as the leader and president of a once again proud Guyana. After twelve successive years as executive president, the law of averages will dictate that there must be instances of faulty decisions and errors, as in the case of the best of circumstances, but this must be placed alongside the considerable successes and meaningful development that have been achieved through dedicated, professional, diligent hard work towards the full development of the country.

The clear transition taking place in moving Guyana towards a modern state which we are all enjoying, must warrant grateful recognition; the philistines will forever remain ungrateful and will pursue an agenda of creating disunity in the society to satisfy questionable political policies.

The more thoughtful Guyanese will continue to travel the road of success in building a strong proud state which will be the envy of all Caricom countries.

We have to say farewell to President Jagdeo with a heavy heart. Our young departing leader raises the question whether the law which he himself signed into the statute books, limiting the tenure of presidents to only two constitutional terms, needs to be reviewed.

Yours faithfully,
David de Groot

Around the Web