Pastor Jeffery’s account calls attention to troubling beliefs

Jun 07, 2016 Letters

---

Dear Editor,

Pastor Wendell Jeffery’s recall (letter in SN 1/6/2016) of his encounter, sometime in 2012, with PNCites was not surprising but still disturbing. According to Pastor Jeffrey, “…the general consensus that night from the PNCites was that nothing was wrong with the Constitution but rather, those who were managing the Constitution. PPP was in power at the time”.
A most disturbing thing about the story, as related by Pastor Jeffery, is that there are people who appear unwilling to accept the implications of experience, and who choose to ignore reason and logic. Presumably, when it comes to use of the powers in Guyana’ Constitution, ‘the PNCites’ would have us imagine that PPPites are villains not be trusted with its powers however, conversely, that PNCites are angels who we should trust with said powers; really! There are many good reasons why the constitution must be further changed.
The first problem is the responsible use of power. Power in the hands of people who do not appreciate why it is necessary to severely restrain access to the Constitution’s vast powers that they either do not need or cannot use responsibly anyway should mean that they cannot be trusted with such powers. The issue of several radio/TV licenses by former President Jagdeo is an example of irresponsible use of those powers. In its present construction the Constitution is an instrument facilitating impunity; persistence of authoritarianism (some might go further and suggest a haven for would be despots); a license for the unstoppable abuse of power and a danger to the freedom of all the citizens of Guyana. Extra-judicial killings were a warning sign.
Second, Guyana is not a country with a deep-rooted culture of compliance. Indeed, it may be much worse than it appears. One source of trouble is the evident disregard for ‘the rule of law’. There may be a whole generation that appears to have no use for the well-established benefits to society of the primacy of “the rule of law” in relation to governing. Their understanding appears to be that government has power to make policy and can act on such policy, in spite of the Constitution and the country’s laws. This is why NICIL and the University of Guyana Student Loan Agency could be created without proper statutes. The outcome was predictable.
We would therefore encourage those with disdain for the ‘rule of law’ to look around; the world is full of basket-case countries. They will find that one of the common denominators is the quality, or absence, of the ‘rule of law’. They will discover that where the ‘rule of law’ is not triumphant impunity and chaos reigns; in part, this appears to be Guyana’s experience. In the absence of a culture of compliance the country could be in permanent crisis. Brute force must be used to govern. V.S. Naipaul’s ‘interaction based on brutality’ will not be a Freddie Krueger type nightmare, but rather a state of persistent reality.
Third is the relationship between institutions and human behavior, which some people may choose to ignore. It seems that ‘they’ believe, either that the Constitution is not a cause of some of Guyana’s disasters, or, that it is easier to play hypocrite. The implication of the Constitution’s vast powers is that humans can be trusted with those powers. This is not true, (a rare exception is Jesus) whether the humans are PNCites, PPPites, APNUites, AFCites or WPAites. Therefore, a nation’s founding document, and indeed its entire corpus of norms, must severely restrict the scope for people’s inclination to misuse power.
Guyana’s history, and indeed world history, is full of examples but we have no space to illustrate with some of them. Suffice to say that, as a starting point, one way to contain abuses is that no one should have access to such powers. Reason should lead to this conclusion. What happens when the PPP is returned to power, and it will? PNCites once thought that they would be in power forever. PPPites should have asked this very question while they were in power. Yet they did little to voluntarily alter the Constitution. Instead ‘they’, now in opposition, ‘…worry that their voices will be muzzled in Parliament…’ ‘about ‘…things being rammed down their throats…’; and they cry every day about the APNU-AFC abuses against them.
We conclude with the view that PNCites, PPPites and all other ‘ites’ should boldly change the Constitution, guided by fundamental principles such as ‘all men are created equal with inalienable rights’. Key provisions should be reconfigured based on ideals of freedom, and, consider that individual free expression of will is one of the keys to a nations success; therefore, include the toughest safeguards to limit future abuse of power. They could save themselves and Guyana from further disaster and suffering. They should become ‘the men/women in the mirror’ and agents that flow with the tide of history, not against it. Mr. Editor, it really matters what the political class believes.
Ivor Carryl

---

---