There must be a limit to self-interest

Dec 07, 2012 Features / Columnists, Freddie Kissoon

If I were asked which set of people I have the least respect for in my country, I would say those citizens who are in the organizational structures that are supposed to speak on behalf of and negotiate for the business people. I want to make it quite clear that I am referring to individuals that are in the hierarchical positions of the umbrella organizations not the country’s business community as a whole.
This columnist has interfaced over the long years since the PPP came into power in 1992 with very decent and honourable business people that have this country’s future close to their heart. I admire these types and have a healthy respect for them. Then there are those in our business community that would tolerate any policy depravity, even if it is destructive of the fabric of this nation, just to cozy up with the power establishment for their own moneyed self-interest.
Since the historic 2011 elections, some in the business organizations have either shown immense ignorance of the nature of the Constitution of Guyana or are profoundly dishonesty people pursuing their own narrow goals. A schoolboy does not need training to understand how our Constitution works.
The Constitution endows the Executive Office with enormous powers. That Constitution does not allow for the limitation of the Executive power to make policies and run the affairs of the State, even if the Executive did not win a majority of votes in a general election.
Since the 2011 elections, the Executive has enacted policies, awarded contracts, made State appointments and continue to shape the direction of all State institutions in the total public realm. This behaviour since the 2011 election results has not had an input from the opposition that saw a change in any of the areas mentioned above. Mr. Kellawan Lall, whom this writer believes has a very low approval rating from this nation, will be appointed as an information Tsar. No consultation with the opposition was pursued.
The Local Government Ministry appointed a town clerk and the opposition which has a majority on the elected Council was not asked for its approval. In the coming weeks there will be a new Vice-Chancellor for the University and that office will be filled even if the opposition rejects the choice of the Executive office.
The broadcasting authority was implemented with an unpalatable headship and the advice of national stakeholders was not solicited. Billions of dollars go into suppliers’ hands and opposition questions on this are left unanswered. This is what has played out since the last general elections – the Executive has made policies and appointments.
It borders on dishonesty for any stakeholder to argue that political instability will arise if the opposition and the Government do not dialogue and negotiate without looking at the reality of where power lies.
Such an engagement has to begin with the use of power. The opposition has no leverage on the use of power, even though it has a majority in Parliament, and this is because the Constitution does not confer authority on the opposition in relation to the use of State power, meaning the administration of the State.
The opposition’s Bills and amendments to legislation will evaporate if the Executive refuses to assent. What the opposition has is the power to make laws, and in this area the leverage still lies with the Executive. This is how our Constitution is framed
Take the barriers around Parliament. A parliamentary motion to remove them was successful. State officials, including the police, have refused to pull them down.
In any discussion on the prevention of instability, the results of the 2011 election must not only be the starting point, but it has to be the most powerful factor in the equation, because the Executive was not elected to office with a majority vote.
For the Executive, the ruling party and important stakeholders to derecognize this reality is to play with fire. Here is where national stakeholders such as the Private Sector Commission (PSC) have to seek to instill a sense of reality in the Government. The Government must be told that at the heart of the matter is the nature of State behaviour, of which no other example of ancient thinking by the PPP is more graphic than that of local government reform.
A diplomat told this columnist that he is convinced that the ruling party does not want the reforms. Of the three parliamentary parties, only the PPP is resisting legal autonomy and financial independence in the body of reform for the local government system. Can’t the PSC see this?

Discover more from Kaieteur News

Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.

Latest News