Mr. Ramotar’s assumption of dictatorial powers is neither just nor understandable

Nov 14, 2014 Letters

---

Dear Editor,
In a letter last week, I made the case that religious and civil society had failed Guyana by being silent on certain critical issues, singling out the leadership-advocacy organization Blue CAPS as a promising youth-led initiative that uncharacteristically disappointed in that regard.
I respect Clinton Urling, Blue CAPS’ founder and Chief Executive, as an ambitious and intelligent person of my generation, one who has entered the arena when others are content to snipe from the sidelines or stay silent, and he should be commended for that.  However, it appears that the thrust with which he started the initiative seems to be wavering.
When I pointed out on social media the entity’s silence in the wake of the Nandlall issue, it was indicated that they were working on a consensus-based statement, one that should come out the end of this week.
Now, with President Ramotar having assumed dictatorial powers, something that has made the news internationally, from Time magazine to the BBC to Al-Jazeera to the New Zealand Herald, the organization seems to be in chaos about its actual position on this issue.  The entity issued a statement – published on their Facebook page and on two online media outlets, and promoted by Urling – which appealed for dialogue but was absent of a direct appeal to return to Parliament, and which included the curious assertion that:
“….we also understand the rational [sic] of his decision against the threat of a no-confidence motion that would have curtailed the five-year democratic mandate to which he was justifiably elected to serve in executive office.”
Not only did that statement legitimize the President’s move, but saw the justification as rational, although expressing disagreement with the prorogation.  It completely ignores the fact the majority parliamentary opposition was also given a democratic five-year mandate.  On Facebook, I highlighted this issue and several members of Blue CAPS responded saying that the published position was not a unified one, including two executive members who stated that their personals positions supported an unequivocal return to Parliament.   Most importantly, we had executive member, Joel Simpson issuing a statement which read in part:
”We embarked on a very open and democratic process to solicit the views of our members on this issue. Those views were then collated into a statement. However, in our rush to get a statement out, it was not vetted to ensure the views contained therein represented the majority positions that were put forward. That was a HUGE mistake. And we’re working to rectify it in this instance; and we are putting systems in place to ensure all statements are vetted before they are sent to the media.”
However, in his most recent letter,  (“All parties should sit down and talk with a referee present” – SN, November 13) the entity’s leader, signing as “Clinton Urling, Blue CAPS”, while he does not repeat the assertion that Ramotar’s decision was understandable, nevertheless again argues that:
“In the final analysis, the only real solution out of this democratic crisis is to finally commence, in a meaningful way, the missing ingredient that got us here: collective political dialogue…  With the distrust that exists, it is necessary that a referee of sorts be involved in such talks, be it civil society or international observers. More and more it is becoming clear that Guyana cannot be run by one party, but rather the task requires a collective and inclusive effort. I urge our politicians during this testing time to put the nation first and start to look at new ways to reinvent governance and government in Guyana along a more cooperative and inclusive path.”
For the benefit of Mr. Urling and the rest of Blue CAPS, let me make it clear that there should be equivocation on this.  The political actors should in fact sit down and talk with some referee yes, but that forum is the Parliament of Guyana and the referee is the Speaker of the National Assembly, as has been made clear by every impartial entity commenting on this, including the OAS.
If the PPP executive feels that it has a case, it should make that case to the representatives of the people in the full view of the people in the forum designated for it.  This does not preclude a proposal to reconfigure the entire political system as Mr. Urling suggests, one the government can bring and appeal for the necessary two-thirds parliamentary majority to pass.  If an elected majority of the representatives of the people disagree with that case in parliament, the PPP – confident of its achievements and respectful of the rights of the people to make the best choice to govern them – can take their case to the people of Guyana.  This is basic democracy.
To suggest that Ramotar’s cowardly use of a constitutional provision to prorogue parliament (one of the flaws of the very system that Urling skewers) should be a basis for an extra-parliamentary refereed discussion on the way forward, including stakeholders that have been silent on the PPP’s worst excesses, is ludicrous at best.  It undermines the most foundational tenets of representative governance.
Mr. Ramotar’s assumption of dictatorial powers is neither just nor understandable.  It is a blatant and unapologetic manouevre intended to use or abuse presidential prerogative, as constructed by Forbes Burnham, to shield the PPP from facing the electorate at a time when its skeletons are pouring out of the closet, including the clear conspiracy to destroy the life of Maurice Arjoon and two other NBS managers simply because he defied Bharrat Jagdeo on a position of economic stewardship and principle.  That’s it.
The political opposition represents the majority of the people as decided in the same process that gives Ramotar legitimacy as the executive president.   As executive president he used a convenient constitutional escape hatch on the premise that he wants to talk to that elected majority representatives.  Those elected majority representatives have indicated that they will only talk in Parliament.  Every second that he refuses to return to Parliament, he is defying the will of the people, a dictatorial stance, and any suggestion that does not call for the resumption of immediate resumption Parliament is in support of this stance.  This isn’t an issue that has any gray area and it should not be presented as such.
Ruel Johnson

---

---