Dear Editor,
The independence vision of Guyana beckoned all Guyanese to high ground: one nation, one people, one destiny. We have had a tortuous path since then and we remain riven with grievances and distrust. Even so, we have unique opportunities to realize this vision – if we are ready to grasp them. Our nation can do two things immediately to help in this process: bring back the constituency system; and reform the rights commissions.
Our two main political parties each share one abiding goal: to obtain and keep power. That is in the nature of politics and we need to understand it. This explains why neither party, so far, while in government, has sought to move towards constitutional reform or a system of power-sharing. The current dispensation, like the previous one, has its eyes on one thing: holding on to power.
Can one help them rise above themselves? As a Guyanese Attorney -at-Law who has served his country as well as the UN, I would like to think we can: through incremental steps that might be agreed upon, one at a time. The PNC changed the independence constitution and moved away from the constituency system. That has had two consequences: separating Members of Parliament from constituencies and removing opportunities for candidates to compete at the constituency level. The people were no longer allowed to vote on the basis of the competence of individual candidates.
The Party leaders became all powerful: deciding who, from the party lists, sits in Parliament, qualified or not, or whatever the people in the regions or districts thought of those who sat in Parliament. Mem-bers of Parliament rarely carry out constituency duties. To date, the two principal formations in the current Parliament have had little or no dialogue and pass each other as ships in the night. Might it not be possible for the two main political formations to agree on this simple reform: bringing back the constituency system?
The Universal Declaration of Human Rights has an inspiring provision: “The will of the people shall be the basis of the authority of Governments.” Let the supporters of each party rally in support of this change to bring back the constituency system. Let the people choose their constituency representatives directly. Surely, this is something that the two main political formations can agree upon readily? The opportunity is there to bring in constitutional reforms one building block at a time. That is probably the only way it will happen.
Another building block that can be put in place without much controversy is to reform the rights commissions. When the Constitution of Guyana was reformed the last time, my friend and UN colleague Brian Burdekin, expert on national human rights commissions came to Guyana and strongly advised the constitutional reform committee against a multiplicity of commissions. He urged, instead, a single, strong national human rights commission. Instead, we now have multiple rights commissions for the protection of children, women, and indigenous peoples, and for the elimination of racial discrimination. The blueprint was that the heads of the sectoral commissions would constitute a national human rights commission with its own chairperson. The national commission, as such, has never taken flight.
Whatever one might think of the sectoral commissions, and I approach them with the respect they deserve, Guyana lacks a strong, independent, national human rights commission. This, for a multi-ethnic society, is a serious gap that should be corrected as soon as possible. This is something that the two major political formations should be able to consult together and agree upon.
Over a career of three and a half decades at the United Nations I worked in the areas of human rights, policy planning and speech-writing, conflict resolution, peacemaking, peacekeeping, and peacebuilding. I have seen ethnic conflict up front, in all its rawness, in places like Bosnia, Croatia, Kosovo, Macedonia, and Ivory Coast. In Uganda, I saw at first hand how a strong national human rights commission can help navigate a path among different ethnicities.
As a Guyanese Attorney-at-Law, when I researched and published in 2001 a book on the Guyana Court of Appeal. It was particularly instructive to write the chapter on the promotion and protection of human rights in Guyana. One could see that the key to national cohesion in Guyana lies in respecting and protecting the rights of every individual.
Having performed the functions of UN High Commissioner for Human Rights, I am convinced that a strong national human rights commission, such as the one I saw in action in Uganda, can be helpful to a country such as Guyana. Kenya, in addition to an independent national human rights commission, also has a National Cohesion and Integration Commission. It is a statutory body established in 2008 under the National Cohesion and Integration Act.
The National Cohesion and Integration Commission was established in recognition that long-term issues with regard to poverty, inequitable distribution of resources and perceptions of historical injustices and exclusion of segments of the Kenyan society were among the underlying causes of the prevailing social tensions, instability and the cycle of violence recurrent in electoral processes in Kenya. The similarities with the situation in Guyana are striking. The Commission consists of a chairperson nominated by the President and approved by the National Assembly, and seven commissioners nominated by the Presi-dent and approved by the National Assembly.
Since its establishment, the Commission has discussed and proposed solutions to issues such as: constitutional, legal and institutional reforms; tackling poverty and inequality, as well as combatting regional development imbalances; tackling unemployment, particularly among the youth; consolidating national cohesion and unity; undertaking land reform; addressing a lack of accountability and transparency among leaders and removing impunity. In any reform of the rights commissions in Guyana, one might study the relevance of the Commission on national cohesion and integration in Kenya.
Let me conclude with a final point: a situation such as that in Guyana requires confidence-building and peace-building. In this process, ideas matter. Implement-ing ideas step by step can help in confidence-building and peace-building. As a Guyanese Attorney-at-Law who has served his country as well as the United Nations, I offer these ideas in the spirit of discussion, dialogue, confidence-building and peace-building. Perhaps there are better ideas. If so, let’s hear them!!! And let us tackle constitutional reform one step at a time.
Yours faithfully,
Dr. Bertrand Ramcharan
Formerly of the United Nations. Seventh Chancellor of the University of Guyana
