Latest update January 5th, 2025 4:10 AM
Sep 05, 2014 Letters
Dear Editor,
From the time the 1980 constitution was promulgated the then opposition political parties and some commentators dubbed it repugnant. And this activity continues today. In 1998 after the signing of the Herdmanston Accord the nation experienced an agreement for constitutional reform. The Constitutional Reform Commission was subsequently established with Ralph Ramkarran as Chairman. The current constitution emanated from this exercise that saw the involvement of citizens and groups.
It must be noted that during the PNC government there were accusations of abuse of authority and mismanagement. A number of public officials who committed infractions were dropped from the cabinet, some placed before the courts and some taken before the ombudsman. We have seen the court rule against the PNC government and the decisions of the court respected. One major example is the 1979 Wage Freeze announced by Prime Minister Burnham. This was challenged in the High Court by Teemal, an employee of GuySuCo. The government’s decision was hit down by Justice Baburam. The government then took its case to the Appeal Court, which was presided over by Chancellor Keith Massiah, and Justice Baburam’s ruling was upheld. The PNC administration respected the court’s decision.
Look at Guyana today, with a constitution that saw significant reforms in 1999, with major inputs by the very people who in 1980-1992 told us it was repugnant, and we must ask ourselves the question- “Why were there responses by the PNC government to complaints and a respect for the court but today under the PPP government the same does not hold true?”
From the time the PNC demitted office the accusations about corruption, breaking of the law and the abuse of authority have increased significantly. Instead of seeing efforts to rein in the lawless and discipline public officials, we are witnessing efforts being made to protect and shield those who are accused, even if it requires posting them on diplomatic assignment abroad.
What is happening here is that we are confronted with a behaviour pattern where no one is held accountable. The concern with the protagonists for constitutional change is that no one is prepared to show the society that when further change takes place how will this realise accountability, which remains the crux of the problem in governance. This government is not held accountable to the constitution, laws, court’s rulings, public service rules, international declarations, conventions and charters- nothing! Some in the opposition are also following suit.
For instance, the constitution allows for a Public Service Appellate Tribunal which is an appeal mechanism for public servants who are aggrieved. For more than 15 years this tribunal has not been appointed. What guarantee is given to public servants that further changes in the constitution will realise the appointment of the tribunal and the enjoyment of their right to appeal? None.
All our elected officials in the National Assembly have sworn to uphold the constitution. It is clear that these officials are cherry picking what they will uphold and what they will disregard. It is clear too that sections of society are selective who they will hold accountable and who will be allowed to walk free. It is clearer that sections of the society are still fighting Burnham’s presidency which ended in 1985, that is, almost three decades ago. In this lopsided, hate-driven and unaccountable environment, further constitutional change will not bring about changed behaviours.
An electoral system is no excuse for poor governance, marginalisation and pervasive corruption. The perception that nowhere in the world a party that has acquired the minority of the popular votes is allowed to form the government/executive ignores that in the first-past-the-post electoral system this remains a constant, as evident in the Caribbean, UK and the USA. In our proportional representative system the plurality is allowed to form the executive. In our situation the problem is not the seats in parliament and who forms the executive, it is accountability.
Another ready example of PPP abuse is that today citizens are not allowed to protest on the pavements in front of Parliament Building. Under the PNC government Guyanese protested on these pavements and I remember Clement Rohee and Gail Texiera protesting with us, but today this right is taken away by these very persons who enjoyed it under the PNC. The issue before us is a behaviour that needs to be changed. No further constitutional change can bring about changed behaviour without the government and opposition made to understand that they are accountable to the people and the people demanding that accountability.
A constitution is dead at its heart unless activated by the people. People’s power will curb any dictator and excess.
Lincoln Lewis.
Jan 05, 2025
…GT Kanaimas stun Lady Royals 2-1 to lift inaugural K&S Futsal title kaieteur Sports- Exactly one month after the kickoff of the Kashif and Shanghai/One Guyana National Knockout Futsal...Peeping Tom… Kaieteur News –The PPPC is not some scrappy garage band trying to book a gig at the Seawall Bandstand.... more
By Sir Ronald Sanders Kaieteur News- It has long been evident that the world’s richest nations, especially those responsible... more
Freedom of speech is our core value at Kaieteur News. If the letter/e-mail you sent was not published, and you believe that its contents were not libellous, let us know, please contact us by phone or email.
Feel free to send us your comments and/or criticisms.
Contact: 624-6456; 225-8452; 225-8458; 225-8463; 225-8465; 225-8473 or 225-8491.
Or by Email: [email protected] / [email protected]