The dangers of a maximum leader

Oct 24, 2017 Features / Columnists, Peeping Tom

---

In a recent interview with this newspaper, the former Prime Minister of Guyana, Hamilton Green, was unapologetic about the rule of Forbes Burnham. He went as far as saying that he agreed with the banning of certain foodstuff and National Service at University of Guyana, but he did concede that these measures were not introduced properly.
When asked whether he did not tell Burnham that, he replied, “Who could tell Burnham anything once he made up his mind?”
One of the problems with supreme leaders is precisely that effect on others. Those around them either are afraid to speak up to them or feel that it is useless trying to convince them on something that they had made up their mind about. The government ends up being comprised of political fawners who are unable, afraid or unwilling to challenge the decisions of the supreme leader.
We are seeing this now happening in Zimbabwe, whose leader Robert Mugabe is now 93 years old. No one questions his decisions. No one dares to. One of his close associates in government said recently that Mugabe will rule even from the grave.
Political obeisance arises when absolute power is concentrated in the hands of one person, a phenomenon which is not alien to Guyana. Under the Constitution of Guyana, all Executive power resides with the President. It means he has the ultimate say in all decisions, since he is supreme, and not Cabinet.
There has been an attempt by some critics at bastardizing placing executive authority in Cabinet, but placing full executive authority in Cabinet is far more democratic than placing it under the hand of a single person, as presently exists under the Constitution of Guyana.
Placing full executive authority in Cabinet is also better suited to coalition governments. In fact, it is a mockery of coalition politics for full executive authority to be placed in the hands of one person.
If such authority was to be reposed in Cabinet, it would mean that Cabinet, by either majority or a special majority, would have to approve of all major political decisions, including that of the appointment of the Chair of the Guyana Elections Commission. This would avoid the situation which presents itself today, in which the coalition parties are being forced to defend a decision in which they had no say.
The Alliance for Change (AFC) had entered into an agreement, known as the Cummingsburg Accord, with A Partnership for National Unity (APNU), which had allowed for the formation of a pre-election coalition. However, the AFC has found itself being sidelined within the government because of the domination of APNU, and because, also, full executive authority is vested in one man, the President. This is incompatible with coalition politics.

The President had the third list of nominees for a Chair of the Guyana Elections Commission for more than three months. When he was questioned whether he had made a decision, his answer was that he had to consult with his political parties. It was assumed that this meant he had to consult with the AFC.
It is not yet clear whether the President consulted the AFC or the WPA on the list. The AFC is saying that they had no part in the choice of Chairman of the Guyana Elections Commission. In other words, they were not consulted on the decision of the President.
This is an untenable position. It is a slap in the face of the AFC executives. They should have been consulted on such an important decision.
The President has exercised his authority in this matter without the approval or disapproval of one of the main coalition parties. The AFC should now do the decent thing and have a public burning of the Cummingsburg Accord, because that agreement is not worth the paper that it is written on.
The AFC now finds itself in the embarrassing situation of having to defend one of the most controversial decisions in the political history of Guyana. It has to stand in support of the President, even though it had no say in the perverse decision that he made.
This is the fallout from working within a governance system in which executive authority is concentrated in the hands of one person. It was such a system which led to the creation of maximum leaders such as Adolf Hitler.
A system in which executive authority rests in the hands of one man leads to the situation described by Hamilton Green, in which Cabinet members feel it is futile to speak up against the maximum leader, because it will change nothing, other than making the person speaking out become disfavoured in the eyes of the supreme leader.
Guyana must avoid its Cabinet becoming a group of ‘yes’ men and ‘yes’ women. Guyana can do without political sycophants working under a maximum leader.

---

---