Will the ‘interim’ government’s control have reasonable prospect of permanency?

Jul 17, 2019 Letters

---

DEAR EDITOR,

The defenders and apologists of government are conveniently overlooking the crux of the matter viz:
“The cabinet including the President, shall resign if the government is defeated by the vote of a majority of all elected members of the National Assembly on a vote of no confidence.”
Full stop!
Rumination of all hues and shades, obfuscations of the weirdest types as well as quasi-legal explanations and elucidations, the sum total of which, have one sole objective, to shield and discourage the government from the adhering to the CCJ’s consequential orders and to keep the government on life support for as long as possible.
With every passing day, mass deceptiveness fueled by confusion mongers gets worse. The situation closely resembles a race to the bottom.
At first blush, it is interesting to observe how the ‘constitutional experts’ in the APNU+AFC who, had earlier rejected the notion and applicability of caretaker government within the meaning of Article 106(6) of Guyana’s Constitution are now studiously dodging the CCJ’s characterisation of the Coalition Administration.
The embarrassment was perhaps so overwhelming that the coalition government could not come to grips with deeming themselves a caretaker government.
That would have meant yielding ground to those who had earlier exhorted government to accept the suggested status with effect from December 21, 2018.
The problem was that since President Granger himself had debunked the call for his government to be designated an interim government, it would have been too bitter a pill to swallow.
And so with pride more than with prejudice, the ruling coalition meekly agreed to don the mantle of ‘interim government in an interim period’ as a face saving device.
True, there is no mention of ‘caretaker government’ in the letter of the Constitution.
President Granger himself admitted he did seek but could not find and so, true to his stubborn style, he threw the concept like a boomerang as far as he could.
But lo and behold, as was the case with the debate over the number that was needed to pass the no confidence motion the boomerang returned striking down his rejection of caretaker government.
Ralph Ramkarran put it this way:
“The CCJ … placed a basic and well known principle above and beyond our intractable disputes where President Granger, couldn’t find it (caretaker government) in our Constitution, (he) could now easily locate it.”
The CCJ has determined that we now have a ‘caretaker government’ functioning in an ‘interim period.’
The CCJ could not have been clearer with respect to its definition of caretaker government:
“By convention, the government is expected to behave during this interim period as a caretaker and to restrain the exercise of its legal authority”
To reinforce its judgment, the CCJ made it clear that… after its defeat following the no confidence motion, the government is “on a different footing from that which existed prior to the vote of no confidence.”
Notwithstanding, the CCJ’s definition of caretaker government, the nation is now being treated to a slew of outlandish definitions of caretaker government meaning; “operating in an interim mode” That
“There is no such thing as half government – there is either a fully empowered government or none at all.”
And instead of “restraining the exercise of its legal authority” as the CCJ has ordered, we now hear that “government retains its full panoply of legal powers.”
Further, we are informed that “government continues as usual.”
And as though this is not sufficient, spin doctors sympathetic to government have invoked the concept of “vagueness” in the CCJ’s orders suggesting for example that budget 2020 preparations and house to house voter registration must continue irrespective of the CCJ’s orders that elections be held in three months with effect from June 18, 2019.
In all this, the nation is being subjected to mass deception and unadulterated political bullyism on the part of the APNU+AFC.
Frantic efforts are being made to kerfuffle the Guyanese people. The strategic objective remains the same, to wriggle out of the CCJ’s orders with a view to extending the tenure of the government.
July 12, 2019 has come and gone but the statements by government are reflective of a particular mindset.
Resistance by the Coalition Administration is likely to be on the following fronts: First: Resignation of the Cabinet including the President; Second: Designation of government a Caretaker government; Third: Restraining the exercise of its legal authority; Fourth: Refusal to select a Chairman for GECOM unless it’s one of the President’s nominees; Fifthly: Insistence that House-to-House registration be the basis for a new voters’ list; Sixthly: Fixing dates for the dissolution of parliament and for holding elections.
By throwing a spanner in the works regarding the number four issue, government will claim it is the opposition who has torpedoed consensus and good faith in the process of selecting a new chairman of GECOM.
It will hold to the view that it is the Opposition that is blocking progress not government.
As regards good faith President Granger appears to have cast his predicament in the context of the Machiavellian view that; “Even those who regularly broke their own promises were quite capable of assuming that others would honour their undertakings towards them even when circumstances should have led them to doubt it.”
The President’s dilemma is made even more painful considering Machiavelli’s advice to the Prince:
“Since men would not keep their word to you, you do not have to keep yours to them … when keeping it is to his (the Prince’s) disadvantage, and when the reasons that made him promise no longer exist.”
So much for good faith Granger style.
This brings us to an important question.
Will the donor community grow more assertive knowing that they are now dealing with a caretaker government?
Will their assertiveness be consistent with the CCJ’s judgments of June 18 and its consequential orders of July 12 or, will it be influenced by political expediency and economic interests or both?
The question the donor community must address is whether the interim government’s control of the affairs of state has a reasonable prospect of permanency.
In the circumstances, the donor community must determine whether its recognition of the interim government is not mistaken for approval of its actions contrary to the consequential orders of the CCJ.
It will therefore be of interest to observe whether the donor community’s approval is left to be inferred from the nature of its dealings with the APNU+AFC Coalition whose administration is now on a different footing.
Where uncertainty about good faith remains, this makes diplomacy more critical since only diplomats are in a position to probe the intentions of the powers that be.

Yours faithfully,
Clement J. Rohee

---

---