Dear Editor,
From the time the 1980 constitution was promulgated the then opposition political parties and some commentators dubbed it repugnant. And this activity continues today. In 1998 after the signing of the Herdmanston Accord the nation experienced an agreement for constitutional reform. The Constitutional Reform Commission was subsequently established with Ralph Ramkarran as Chairman. The current constitution emanated from this exercise that saw the involvement of citizens and groups.
It must be noted that during the PNC government there were accusations of abuse of authority and mismanagement. A number of public officials who committed infractions were dropped from the cabinet, some placed before the courts and some taken before the ombudsman. We have seen the court rule against the PNC government and the decisions of the court respected. One major example is the 1979 wage freeze announced by Prime Minister Burnham. This was challenged in the High Court by Teemal, an employee of GuySuCo. The government’s decision was hit down by Justice Baburam. The government then took its case to the Appeal Court, which was presided over by Chancellor Keith Massiah, and Justice Baburam’s ruling was upheld. The PNC administration respected the court’s decision.
Look at Guyana today, with a constitution that saw significant reforms in 1999, with major inputs by the very people who in 1980-92 told us it was repugnant, and we must ask ourselves the question, “Why were there responses by the PNC government to complaints and a respect for the court but today under the PPP government the same does not hold true?”
From the time the PNC demitted office the accusations about corruption, breaking of the law and the abuse of authority have increased significantly. Instead of seeing efforts to rein in the lawless and indisciplined public officials, we are witnessing efforts being made to protect and shield those who are accused, even if it requires posting them on diplomatic assignment abroad.
What is happening here is that we are confronted with a behaviour pattern where no one is held accountable. The concern with the protagonists for constitutional change is that no one is prepared to show the society that when further change takes place this will realise accountability, which remains the crux of the problem in governance. This government is not held accountable to the constitution, laws, court’s rulings, public service rules, international declarations, conventions and charters – nothing! Some in the opposition are also following suit.
For instance, the constitution allows for a Public Service Appellate Tribunal which is an appeal mechanism for public servants who are aggrieved. For more than 15 years this tribunal has not been appointed. What guarantee is given to public servants that further changes in the constitution will realise the appointment of the tribunal and the enjoyment of their right to appeal? None.
All our elected officials in the National Assembly have sworn to uphold the constitution. It is clear that these officials are cherry picking what they will uphold and what they will disregard. It is clear too that sections of society are selective about who they will hold accountable and who will be allowed to walk free. It is clearer that sections of the society are still fighting Burnham’s presidency which ended in 1985, that is, almost three decades ago. In this lopsided, hate-driven and unaccountable environment, further constitutional change will not bring about changed behaviours.
An electoral system is no excuse for poor governance, marginalisation and pervasive corruption. The perception that nowhere in the world a party that has acquired the minority of the popular votes is allowed to form the government/executive ignores the fact that in the first-past-the-post electoral system this remains a constant, as evident in the Caribbean, UK and the USA. In our proportional representative system the plurality is allowed to form the executive. In our situation the problem is not the seats in parliament and who forms the executive, it is accountability.
Another ready example of PPP abuse is that today citizens are not allowed to protest on the pavement in front of Parliament Building. Under the PNC government Guyanese protested on these pavements and I remember Clement Rohee and Gail Teixiera protesting with us, but today this right is taken away by these very persons who enjoyed it under the PNC. The issue before us is a behaviour which needs to be changed. No further constitutional change can bring about changed behaviour without the government and opposition being made to understand that they are accountable to the people and the people demand that accountability.
A constitution is dead at its heart unless activated by the people. People’s power will curb any dictator and excess.
Yours faithfully,
Lincoln Lewis
