1966 – 2014: What has changed?

May 25, 2014 AFC Column, Features / Columnists

---

“The form of the Constitution being handed down at this time is one which perpetuates divisions in our society, and entrenches minority rule. The Constitution has failed to lay the foundation for national unity. The fundamental rights which the Constitution seeks to safeguard are, in a great measure non-existent, and the government has provided evidence in great abundance of its intention to render all safeguards nugatory.” – Dr Cheddi Jagan, May 26, 1966, Independence Day.
The above statement was made to the National Assembly at the handing over of the new Constitutional Instruments declaring Guyana a free and independent nation. Forty-eight years later, twenty-two of which have been under a PPP Government, Guyana still hangs on to a Constitution that “entrenches minority rule.”
Not only is “minority rule” entrenched in our political system, but the latter part of Dr Jagan’s 1966 statement is as relevant today as it was forty-eight years ago. Despite the changes to the 1980 ‘Burnham Constitution’, we find today that, “the fundamental rights which the Constitution seeks to safeguard are, in a great measure non-existent,” and the PPP government “has provided evidence in great abundance of its intention to render all safeguards nugatory.”
As evidence, let us examine: (1) the Executive branch of Government: This is made up entirely of the PPP. If what Jagan had complained of in his Independence Speech in 1966 was remedied under a PPP Administration, Guyana today would have had a political system that provided for coalition governments where the Executive would be more representational of the will of the electorate.
(2) The National Assembly: The PPP holds less than half the number of seats but seeks to control the outcomes of the House. During debates, the views of the opposition, unless they are supportive of the Government are labelled ‘anti-development’ and those Bills are not assented to.
(3) Abandoning the Separation of Powers: The Court has been replaced by the Executive in determining the constitutionality of Bills passed by the House. Bills that were not assented to, these are deemed unconstitutional by the Attorney General, a responsibility that is reposed in the Court. This practice has come to the fore under the stewardship of President Donald Ramotar who once championed the doctrine of the separation of powers. “One of the great problems faced by the administration in the past was caused by the philosophy of the paramountcy of the Party which the PNC espoused in the early 1970’s. That caused the erosion of the concept of the separation of the powers…” – Donald Ramotar, Government Information Agency, October 2005
(3) Safeguarding Human rights: Article 121of the Constitution provides for a Human Rights Commission. Since the passing of the Constitution (Amendment), Act of 2001 that provided for the establishment of the Human Rights Commission, the PPP/C Administration has failed to have this Commission set up. This could only be seen as an orchestrated attempt to subvert Human Rights in Guyana, an area where the present administration continues to fail badly and one only has to look at the ever increasing complaints of police brutality.
(4) Safeguarding the rights of citizens to manage their own communities: Article 71 of the Constitution recognizes the importance of Local Government as a vital aspect of democracy and the right of people to be involved in the task of managing and developing the communities in which they live. By preventing the holding of Local Government Elections, the PPPC Administration continues to subvert the Constitution and make this right of the people ‘non-existent.’
(5) Safeguarding the public purse: Article 212 W of the Constitution provides for the establishment of the Public Procurement Commission to monitor public procurement and procedures in order to ensure that the procurement of goods, services and execution of works are conducted in a fair, equitable, competitive, cost effective and transparent manner, according to law, and such policy guidelines as may be determined by the National Assembly. The PPP Administration has, since 2001, failed to take the necessary steps to set up the Procurement Commission. The delay in the establishment of this Procurement Commission has seen so much corruption it is just obscene.
(6) Failure to preserve the integrity of high offices: The Integrity Commission has not been properly constituted for years. This Commission is vested with authority to investigate complaints of breach of the Code of Conduct for Public Officials. Breach of the Code would include such acts as: taking bribes; engaging in discriminatory practices; receiving gifts for reward for services; conflict of interest violations; using documents or information for personal benefit; using public property for private use; engaging in sexual misconduct; and, giving private interest a higher priority than public duty.
When one looks at the list of persons obligated to make declarations to the Integrity Commission and considers this in light of the blatant display of new wealth by public officials, especially our new Sultanate, understanding the slothfulness in establishing the Integrity Commission becomes elementary.
Among those public officials who are obligated to make annual declarations to the Integrity Commission are the President, Ministers, Parliamentarians, Permanent Secretaries, Regional Executive Officers, Chief Executive Officers of State Agencies, Presidential Advisors just to name a few.
One would have thought that after all the protestations of the PPP while in opposition, that they would have used their ascension to office to remedy the faults they found with the way of governing. When did they find that the faults were actually not faults at all?

---

---