DEAR EDITOR,
I stand corrected. We are still the Cooperative Republic of Guyana, not because of any oversight on the part of anyone, but because the relevant article in the constitution (Article 1) requires a referendum for its amendment.
I thank my colleague who reminded me of this and chide myself for not setting a good example of proper research to university students. Since Article 1 stands as is, it means Guyana officially is still “in the course of transition from capitalism to socialism”.
While on this matter, let me add a few other points. For ease of reference, the current constitution is referred to as the 2001 constitution, as it is the product of the 1999-2001 reform process. Technically, however, it remains the 1980 constitution; the 2001 reforms have the status of amendments only. I leave it to those with more knowledge to shed light on this decision to amend the old constitution rather than to pass a new one, as was suggested by some.
In addition, there exists the recommendation for a Parliamentary Standing Committee for constitution reform to be enshrined in the constitution and for the committee “to keep the operations of the Constitution under continuous review, and make reports to the National Assembly, including proposals, where appropriate, for reform.” It would be useful for us to hear what the state of play is on this score.
More generally, the real question is, have the 2001 constitution reforms improved the political climate and the quality of life of Guyanese?
Have Guyanese experienced any meaningful change in the way the government serves and accounts to them? Sherwood Lowe