A serious threat to democratic order

Feb 07, 2019 Features / Columnists, Peeping Tom

Within the Organization of American States (OAS), Guyana recently voted to derecognize the legitimacy of the presidency of Nicolás Maduro of Venezuela. This complicity by Guyana may come back to haunt the Granger administration.
In 2018, the OAS had condemned the presidential election, won by Maduro, as lacking legitimacy because it excluded the opposition, and what was seen as its failure to comply with international standards governing free, fair and transparent elections.
By being a party to delegitimizing Maduro within the OAS, the Guyana government may have ironically signed its own warrant of illegitimacy. Guyana can now find itself under the microscope of the OAS for its failure to comply with the tenets of constitutionalism.
The Granger administration has refused to comply with a no-confidence motion passed in the National Assembly on December 21, 2018. The Cabinet has resisted resignation, even though this resignation is merely formalistic, since the government remains in place until a new President is elected.
The Granger administration remains obdurate, even in the face of its failed legal challenge to invalidate the no-confidence vote, and despite the Chief Justice’s ruling that the Cabinet is resigned by operation of law – a legal outcome which automatically occurs whether the party wishes it or not.
The failure of the David Granger administration to concede that the Cabinet has been resigned, and that it is therefore compelled to call elections within 90 days or for such longer period as may be approved by two-thirds of the members of the National Assembly, constitutes an interruption of the democratic order.
The OAS has adopted a democratic charter, which compels it to conduct a situational assessment should there be an interruption of the democratic resulting in a serious impairment of that order, with respect to any country which participates in summits of the OAS.
Guyana not only participates in summits of the OAS, but has been a member of that organization since 1991. The Granger administration’s non-compliance with the constitutional diktat that the Cabinet must resign and call elections within 90 days may be viewed as a serious interruption and impairment of the democratic order, and therefore subject to possible investigation by the OAS.

The OAS recognizes that the democratic order rests on respect for constitutional rule. The excuse of due process being pursued, and therefore that the status quo ante prevails, is not likely to find traction within the OAS, especially considering the recent statements by the European Union, the United Kingdom government, and from a top official of a United Nations Development Programme, about their expectations of democratic behaviour by Guyana.

Also, the OAS will not wish to be seen as practising double standards when it comes to democratic order. It will therefore not likely go soft on Guyana and hard on Venezuela, which had an election.
The opposition People’s Progressive Party Civic (PPPC) has promised to ratchet up the diplomatic ante against the Granger administration. It is now likely that the PPPC will signal its concerns to the OAS.
Under the Inter-American Democratic Charter, an Opposition party cannot invite the OAS to intervene. However, the Secretary General, of his own accord, can call a meeting of the Permanent Council to consider any serious threat to the democratic order in an OAS member state, and to order an assessment of the situation. The present Secretary General has shown a propensity to act without prompting from governments.
If therefore, the PPPC or any individual or organization in Guyana informs the OAS that there is a serious threat to the democratic order in Guyana, to a degree which will constitute an impairment of that order, it is difficult to imagine how the Secretary General, given his recent actions concerning Venezuela, can ignore such information.
The Granger Administration, having sided with others within the OAS to deem Maduro as illegitimate, may well now have to face a similar charge, in light of its unyielding response to the passage of a no-confidence motion.

Discover more from Kaieteur News

Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.

Latest News