Dear Editor,
Coming from me this letter and the opinions in it may surprise many because of my 41-year stand-off with the People’s National Congress. Yet it would be irresponsible for me to remain silent when I see the PNC making statements that open the way from their side for progress in Guyana. Normally, I submit my letters to the press to a small circle for advice and information. Always I alone am responsible for what I write. In this case they will see this letter only after I have sent it to the press. I want no one else to be blamed, if there is blame.
It was humiliating to hear a United Nations specialist chide members of Guyana’s Parliament for failing to use the present situation after the November 28, 2011 elections to create healthy governance and serve the Guyanese people. To its credit the AFC expressed disappointment when the new President in addressing Parliament did not move to set up a government of national unity. Then, surprisingly, the Attorney General moved to the courts to argue for “proportionality” in membership of some key committees, based on seats in the National Assembly. Mr Hughes of the AFC publicly raised the issue of “proportionality” in the Cabinet on the basis of the election results.
Now, seizing the chance of the 46th anniversary of Independence, the PNCR, the largest unit of the coalition A Partnership for National Unity (APNU) has made some important statements in its own right. Here they are the statements word for word:
“While, by their votes last November, the people of Guyana appear to be ready to usher in this vitally necessary new democratic culture, the Executive Government has so far shown little enthusiasm to move in this direction and continues to behave as though nothing has changed.”
And again:
“Our Party is confident that if as a nation we can build a truly, inclusive political culture in which all stakeholders are allowed to play a meaningful role and which can create an enabling environment for the orderly development of the nation, we can look forward to a future that is politically successful, economically self-sustaining and culturally rewarding.”
These statements need very little interpretation. I am sure the other units of the Partnership, a term happily borrowed from Trinidad and Tobago, are members with the same objective in view.
The PPP/C’s wise Prime Minister is likely to respond wisely to the PNCR with a call for an apology. Apology can rightfully arise from the findings of an investigation of the past, best authorized by a national government. I would only state that the PNC in 1992 conceded a fair election and a fair count and paid the political price. That was more than a verbal apology. It also joined with others in the National Assembly to authorize an independent investigation into the “death” of Dr Walter Rodney, the word ‘assassination’ to reasonable people being likely to convey a pre-judgment. While Rodney would be central, along with Teekah, Ohene and Dublin, as well as Shaw, such an inquiry can have wider scope. Those here in Guyana and in Trinidad who have made accusations in relation to the 1960s may take heart and join the call. Apology is always welcome. Change of behaviour is more welcome. Redress and reparation are best.
Since the November general elections, the new President has tried to respond to the results not by an election petition but by the dramatic claim that the opposition rigged the elections. Being very generous, he had some talks with the riggers. He explained that he did not make the alleged rigging an issue, as he wanted to avoid violence. Perhaps for the same reason he avoided the courts, only to go when they’re seeking a majority on the standing and special select committees.
The issue of a national government, even if it does not achieve full unity, has two compelling elements that nothing can replace.
The Preamble to our constitution commits us to find a system of governance that allows “broad-based participation in national decision making.” I agree with the Preamble. That is a logical meaning of the total electoral vote. The Preamble does not compel it but advises it. Justice Keith Massiah in another issue once handed down a signal judgment giving teeth to constitutional declarations about “participation.” The ruling PNC government amended the constitution to put the court’s decision “out of action.”
The second point relates to the control of public funds.
By what kind of common sense can the side with 32 seats of 65 seats seize and control all the ministries? Most replies to my arguments begin and end with one word, ‘partition.’ When President Ramotar appointed all the ministers under article 103 (2) was he fully advised on the meaning of his powers?
Under that article, he had the power and duty to appoint as ministers from among elected members of the National Assembly, or persons qualified to be elected. There was nothing then, and there is nothing now, to compel him to appoint all the ministers from his own list, the PPP /C list.
I can argue that the President did not even wait to see who were all the elected members of the National Assembly. In fact he staged a coup and appointed all the ministers from his own list! He did this at a time when he should not have acted and against the spirit of the constitution and his oath of office.
Common sense then shows that the same constitution that allows a minority candidate to become president under first past the post rules does the balancing act. It allows the same minority president to win back his moral self-respect. How? By choosing ministers from all three lists to do what the constitution requires him to do, choose from among all members. What President Ramotar did is not rule of law. It is rule outside of the law. Talk of a snap election is peevishness. There are ways of using the results to heal the nation and the economy.
The thirty-three in the National Assembly got there through an election. They cannot now be taunted with ”wanting a piece of the action.”
How is it that the PPP forms the majority when it is a majority and still forms the whole government when it not a majority.
Who, then, are the rest of the people, in all parts of Guyana, men and women, of all races, of all beliefs, in all regions, who did not support the PPP? Are they now second-class voters? When time allows me I shall offer some personal opinions on the Preamble, which was approved by the National Assembly and promptly ignored.
Yours faithfully,
Eusi Kwayana
