The changes made to the constitution came from a consensus between all parties

Dear Editor,

In his letter ‘A PPP constitution not a PNC one’ (SN, Feb 17), Dr Henry Jeffrey is deceiving readers by insinuating the current constitution is a PPP one simply because the PPP has not taken measures to amend or replace it. That is not factual.

The changes made to the Burnham constitution during the PPP’s tenure (1999 to 2003 constitutional reform process) were those that came from a consensus among all the parties.  It was the PNC that forced the PPP to the negotiation table (with its violent protests bringing the country to a standstill) demanding that the constitution be amended leading to the proposed changes that were minimal in nature. The PNC did not demand the replacement of the constitution or the rewriting of a new one. The PPP cried “Uncle” and was willing to yield to any demand (giving up a lot of its powers – remember shaving two years off its term) for peace and stability – including the rewriting or replacement of the constitution.  So it is not fair to blame the PPP or describe the constitution as the PPP’s.

Instead of going all out for reforms or completely replacing the fraudulent constitution, there were demands for marginal cosmetic reforms. The PPP agreed. Power was not restored to the people as people like me had hoped. Somehow, the PNC must have thought it would win a free and fair election and would enjoy the powers granted to the winning party in running the affairs of the country. The PNC was not prepared to allow the PPP to dismantle the foundations of the Burnham constitution.  To do so, would be committing political heresy, an attack on the legacy of the party’s founder.  Such an action would have undermined the legitimacy of the successor of Burnham as the party has not shown it is committed to genuine democracy in which people would have a say on how they are governed.

The constitutional reform process could only take such actions that the PNC supported or demanded. If the PNC really wanted to give power to the people it could have demanded more reforms. Instead, the PNC was comfortable with piecemeal reforms and limited power to the people.

Even if the PPP did not want to submit the constitution to changes, and that was not the case, what prevented the PNC from demanding a restoration of the 1966 constitution?

Dr Jeffrey says he is opposed to returning to the parliamentary system of bygone days. So he feels it is OK for an illegal government to replace a democratic parliamentary system with a presidential system in which the people had no voice.

Dr Jeffrey seeks to unjustly link me with the PPP.  So let me make it clear that I am not now nor have ever been a defender of the PPP, and contrary to what he feels I do not subscribe to the PPP’s world view or the PPP’s reading of Guyana’s political history. The mere fact that I oppose the constitution and the PPP favours it is ample evidence that the PPP and I are on opposite sides. My position on constitutional, economic and political policies are at serious odds with the PPP as they are also with the PNC. I believe in people rule and I am of the view that the people should be consulted on every aspect of governance. The PPP has no problems or issues with the Burnham constitution as long as it is in office. If it were to lose office, I am certain the PPP would oppose the Burnham constitution.  This is a constitution that does not serve democracy.  It is a hoax and a fraud. One does not need to exhume Burnham’s corpse to know that no amount of political perfume would make his constitution smell good. I should also note that the AFC has not come out strongly against the Burnham constitution.  Instead, it hopes like the PNC, suffering from delusion, to win a plurality and take us back to Burnhamism.

I don’t see what is wrong with giving people a vote on how they should be governed. We have several choices of constitution – 1961, 1966, and 1980.  The PPP or the AFC or another political entity can prepare constitutions.  Offer all the choices to the people and let them choose one by majority vote. That is the essence of a liberal democracy.

Yours faithfully,
Vishnu Bisram