Dear Editor,
The fiasco cum stalemate cum crisis started in parliament with the no-confidence motion. It progressed to the courts, and has temporarily retraced steps right back to where the roof fell in at the National Assembly. Except that something is missing; and that furnishes evidence of, first, jumping the gun and, then, doing so again. I believe that the opposition is not only running ahead of developments, but stumbles as it does so. Perhaps it doesn’t matter to those that vote, but I believe that it could have used the intervals between the court processes more thoughtfully for greater leverage.
I think that the PPP started protest actions too early. Nothing wrong with being prepared and having various contingency (“what if”) strategies and plans on the drawing board ready for execution, but the party’s leadership should have waited for the outcome and then adjusted accordingly. Instead, there was this surge of energy with the early-premature-protest club and then having to pull back in what can only be regarded today as hasty retreat. That was the first misjudgment.
Next, the second mistake becomes obvious, when word is matched against deed. The word is that there is respect for the rulings of the Court of Appeal. That should only be responded to as commendable and encouraging. But what followed has conflicted with what is postured. For there is no movement back to what was the state of the state prior to the no-confidence motion and passage of December 20, 2018. For certainty, there was hard disagreement generated by sharp insoluble controversies, but there was also a forum, a government, a very visible opposition, and a certain set of circumstances within a known environment.
There was a full parliament. And no matter how raucous and degraded that house of horrors did happened to be, it was functioning at full throttle. Now, since the court’s decisions effectively turns back the clock (or at the very least froze the clock at pre-December 20th) then I humbly submit that the constructive and honourable thing to do would be to attend, and not to boycott. It is my contention that a presence in parliament allows for the biggest boom for each moment spent there. Each moment in this turbulent time counts. The coverage would be universal, the atmosphere sure to be pulsating with energy and histrionics, and the opportunity to utilize the highest soapbox around could be tactically and wisely utilized for maximum exposure and benefit. I mean that is a whole stage on which to perform. Politicians without soapboxes are like dogs without a bark. No bone, too.
For all these reasons, I humbly submit that only a commensurate public presence in the highest deliberative body that the nation has to offer aligns tightly with any utterances about respect for what was handed down. Otherwise, chatter about respect is reduced to the poverty of lip service. Dirt poor and naked, to be sure. Further, talk about “respect” for the decision(s) and then insisting on going off in the opposite direction places the judiciary in a dim disparaging light. Not the way to go. I think it narrows options and backs into a corner. There may have to be retreat or adjustment.
Now, however agreed with or condemned, and as mentioned earlier, the holdings of the Court of Appeal turned back the clock. It is moot as to how and why it arrived where it did: those are intriguing academic exercises, good for the soul, but utterly irrelevant at the present time and for the near future of the next several months. That is, until the matter reaches the august tribunal of the CCJ. It would be interesting (that is the most neutral word coming to mind) to absorb how matters unfold thereafter and how leaders manage themselves and the electrifying expectations. Electrifying it is, for without knowing it, Guyanese are presently using up most of that still unproduced local oil to power their internal elections dynamos, and without paying a cent. How about that for a real oil dividend! No wonder that GPL bills are so high: shortage of energy supplies.
Separately, and for purposes of argument, what if the CCJ upholds? I would argue that a crafty government (and this one is no slacker in that respect) would have been given possible clearance to continue even beyond Gecom’s soft November deadline. It could get more malleable. What would follow? Continued absence? Not doing much good. I think it reduces to the shrillness of sniping and ambushing from the sidelines. The spotlight has to be seized and monopolized. Parliament is the place.
Of course, I can anticipate the counterargument that attendance in the National Assembly would be the equivalent of giving legitimacy to an illegal government. Never a dull day in these latitudes. They (the days) promise to get longer. Harder and sharper, too. Now all Guyana waits for 7 wise men to announce its destiny. Jesus only needed three. Says a lot, doesn’t it?
Yours faithfully,
GHK Lall
