Dear Editor,
Last week the combined opposition parties undid the unlimited package of benefits, in addition to the $1.2M per month pension, that MrJagdeo and his associates forced through the Parliament in 2009. The opposition has already laid for consideration by the Assembly legislation to effect changes in the constitution pertaining to the independence of those bodies, including the courts, which are supposed to stand between us and the abuse of power by the state and the presidency in particular. The resultant legislation will have to be presented to the President for his assent, a matter on which he has already vented his position.
In the recent past I have aired in these letter columns my concerns about the situation relating to the balance of power between the presidency and the legislature under our constitution. The most recent of those pieces prompted the venerable Mr Eusi Kwayana, sage and former politician to write asking me to show where in the constitution lay the justification for my sentence, “Under Guyana’s constitution all ministers, save for a few technocrats, are appointed from a list of MPs drawn from the party winning the single largest bloc of votes.” In fact, Mr Kwayana is quite correct; this sentence describes what happened in 2011. It is not what the constitution requires, especially if the party winning the largest bloc of votes does not win a majority in the House. I therefore undertook to correct the statement and hereby do.
Under our constitution all ministers, save for a few technocrats, may be appointed from a list of MPs drawn from the party winning the single largest bloc of votes. If the latter party does not command a majority in the House however, one would expect the ministers to be appointed from the list of MPs in such a way as to be able to command the support of a majority in the House. Indeed, this is what occurred in 1992 when the PPP won a plurality in the general elections. Elsewhere, it is normal for that inclusive team of MPs to be complemented by an agreed or parliamentary programme or common agenda.
As most readers would be aware, this is the intent of proportional representation (PR) in all its forms.
With a minority of seats in the National Assembly the PPP cannot pass any legislation or realize any decision in the Assembly without the assistance of the opposition, in part or in its entirety. Contrary to what Mr Ramotar, the AG and the PPP mouthpieces in the private sector would have the public believe, this is not an example of the aberrant behaviour of the Guyana opposition parties. It is in fact a feature of all parliamentary democracies.
Without a majority in the House the party with the plurality of votes and its cabinet can have no automatic claim on the executive, let alone exclusive powers of decision-making. It has to find an ally. In fact, in many states that party has no automatic right to be in government since there can be post-election alliances made up of smaller parties. The key to the outcome is to offer crucial cabinet posts based on an inclusive programme in return for an agreement not to ‘overthrow the government’ by blocking its legislation. In any case, I can think of no comparable situation where a government without a majority rushed to appoint a cabinet without consultation knowing full well that it would only command a minority in the Parliament. It was this move which most disappointed observers about Mr Ramotar, who is a seasoned politician. Why did he choose not to emulate Dr Jagan’s strategy of 1992?
Some observers believe that it is a reflection of continued PPP arrogance. After 20 years in office and under the shadow and baleful influence of Mr Jagdeo, the PPP still refuses to accept the obvious. It would seek to bully and bluster its way through. That approach would be buttressed by the powers which the presidency has over key appointments to constitutional agencies, a MIA civil society and an intimidated private sector.
There may, however, be another reason: fear of prosecution. That fear may have been prompted by the widely held view of official involvement in corruption. The extent of that involvement has led Professor C Y Thomas to transfer a nomenclature used to describe some states in Africa, to Guyana − a ‘criminalised state.’ Both the APNU and AFC leaders have agreed to prosecute wrongdoing should they be elected to office. With a more inclusive cabinet, it would be difficult to resist such action. Better therefore not to ask the other parties to join, lest they ask for their pound of flesh.
Meanwhile, back in office, the orgy of theft and corruption continues. Hopefully, with the passage of time, memories dim and the urge to ‘clean up’fades as critical elements of the private sector and others wittingly or otherwise become complicit. It is, for example, absolutely unbelievable that whilst Guyanese travelling out of Guyana and operating in both Guyana and elsewhere are being prosecuted abroad for major crimes of fraud and drugs in particular, not a single successful case has been concluded here. The government following in the footsteps of MrJagdeo defends this situation on the spurious grounds of ‘lack of evidence.’ It appears that rules of evidence and onus of proof are more burdensome in Guyana than elsewhere. More burdensome, I should add, except in cases of treason and sedition. Treason trials are an old Stalinist device for intimidating and eliminating opposition.
The PPP government is far more keen to pursue treason ‘trials’ therefore than to prosecute drug lords. Few major drug and fraud cases attract charges in Guyana and fewer still are successfully prosecuted in the courts. This reflects both the weakness of the police and the challenges faced by the courts. This brings us back to the dysfunctional role of the presidency in the separation of powers and the rise of the criminalised state.
But back to the cabinet. Whatever the reason, the PPP under Mr Ramotar, has appointed an exclusively PPP cabinet which is aggressively pursuing PPP policies. So this is neither a normal nor a non-confrontational government. The PPP has gained a minority of seats, but behaves, as is their wont, as if in governing they have a right to overrule the majority! This was neither the intent of the 1980 constitution nor any other constitution which caters for the PR system. Dr Jagan did not seek a PR system but is this the outcome which our forbears, including Dr Jagan, envisaged when they struggled for independence and democracy? On the contrary, these actions by the PPP actually stand in direct contravention to Dr Jagan’s longstanding pledge to do away with winner-take–all politics. In fact we have actually arrived at, ‘loser takes all’ politics!
The consequence of this approach has been a contradiction between the strategy the opposition parties are expected to pursue and their actual powers.
Many members of the public assume that an opposition majority in Parliament enables the opposition to behave as if they are the executive. This is what Mr Ramotar exploits in his broadcasts on governance. He casts his government as victims constitutionally abused by the legislature. On the other hand, several commentators are disappointed that the opposition fails to use its majority to effect the changes in the constitution the opposition pledged during the course of the hustings. The question of using the legislative leverage to maximum effect is a legitimate one. Obviously, however, there can only be so much constitutional change without PPP agreement, since many of the critical changes require a two-thirds majority of the House. The PPP strategy has therefore been to engage in discussions but to yield nothing at all. In order to force the PPP into agreeing and implementing constitutional change opposition legislators would have to unite the two parties behind a programme that could bring down the government. There is as yet no common ground on the modalities and timing of such action. Consequently, notwithstanding the headline-catching skirmishes, the PPP has so far not been forced to ‘come to the table’ with any serious and constructive intent.
Mr Ramotar’s New Year’s Day message called on the combined opposition to embrace cooperation and political compromise in 2013. This has been supported by some leaders of the private sector who bemoan the impasse between the legislature and the executive. There are a number of constitutional issues lying in the divide between the PPP regime and the opposition parties, none of which has seen progress in years. They range from amendments to the president’s powers under the constitution, and regularizing the laws governing Gecom, to the operations of NCN, the appointment of a truly independent ombudsman, to implementing the agreement concluded between Mr Hoyte and Mr Jagdeo in 2002.
In order to trigger the compromise for which he yearns, the President could demonstrate the goodwill and national interest he claims to possess by choosing any one of these issues and announcing the compromise he would be willing to make in order to move Guyana forward.
The opposition would then be called on to demonstrate their good faith by choosing another issue for the same purpose. In this way, the President can make a start on establishing the good faith and trust on which political compromise needs to be based. The way would be open for an across-the-board movement. Faithful implementation would of course be the next hurdle but that can be approached in the same manner. A meaningful and constructive role could be found for the non-state actors (and private sector spokesmen who so recently have taken an interest in highlighting the national interest) to help to impartially and systematically monitor the implementation.
Over to you Mr President!
Yours faithfully,
Carl B Greenidge
