Let 1000 Campaigns Bloom

Oct 07, 2019 Letters

---

DEAR EDITOR,

Democracy, it is generally understood around the world, is a form of government in which the supreme power is vested in the people and directly exercised by them, or their elected representatives, under a free electoral system. It is indeed ironic, and immensely instructive, that the process (NO Confidence Vote) set in motion by the unethical, treacherous and anti-democratic conduct of a Member of Parliament whose appointment was deemed unconstitutional by the courts is the most celebrated political development in our country with its proclivity to generate political and social instability and retard development in service of achieving political ambitions unrealised through elections. The intended, and actual, victims of the No Confidence Vote (NCV), which was advertised as a triumph for parliamentary democracy, were the people whose rights to parliamentary representation were abridged, the National Assembly itself which has been declared dead and buried, and the executive (President and Cabinet). Any negative impacts on the offices of Head of State and Commander-in-Chief of the armed forces are merely collateral damage.
Our constitution proclaims that “the supreme organs of democratic power shall be 1) the Parliament; 11) the President; and 111) the Cabinet” (Article 50). Article 70 (1, 2 & 3) mandates that Parliament shall continue for 5 years unless sooner prorogued or dissolved by the President, who shall “ unless his or her office sooner becomes vacant under article 178, continue in office until the person elected to the office of President at the next election held under Article 91 assumes office” (Article 92). Also, the Cabinet, inclusive of the Prime Minister, Vice-Presidents and Ministers, (Article 104) shall continue to function up until the date of the election. For the supporters of the NCV, Article 106 (6) is seemingly venerated as the pre-eminent article of the constitution which subordinates and contradicts these earlier provisions by unceremoniously and abruptly demanding the resignation of the Cabinet, including the President (who is also Head of State and Commander-in-Chief of the armed forces) if the government is defeated in a NCV though the following Article 106 (7) makes clear that the Government shall remain in office and only resign after the President takes the oath of office following the next elections. These seemingly contradictory and irreconcilable provisions, and the subsequent conflicting interpretations, caused the majority government to approach the Courts for a determination and not to frustrate the NCV, disrespect the Constitution or to occupy power illegally and to implement a dictatorship as alleged by the opposition; and the final court (the CCJ) has upheld the validity of the NCV without compelling the resignation of the President and Cabinet. The President, with overwhelming justification, has maintained that he remains faithful to his oath of office and respectful of the Constitution and the Courts, which support his government’s continuation in office until the next elections.
I state these facts to emphasise that the NCV does not, and cannot, withdraw legitimacy, authority or legality from the President and his government in spite of the wild utterings and provocative, insightful and disrespectful actions of the opposition; it can only advance the time by which elections, the only democratic, legal and constitutional mechanism, can do so. The failure to hold elections within 3 months of the passage of the NCV is as much a failure of the NCV itself as it is a failure of GECOM or the President since the construction of this provision made no arrangements to command the preparedness and readiness of GECOM. It could not by itself, produce a properly constituted and functioning Commission or provide the necessary resources for the conduct of elections, and, in recognition of this inadequacy the constitution (through Article 106:7) provided for a parliamentary mechanism, and the CCJ agreed, to determine an alternative, consensual and more appropriate date for elections. This mechanism is not a weapon in the hands of the Opposition Leader to grant, or withdraw, legitimacy or constitutionality from the government, credible elections are still the only democratic, legal and constitutional method to do so and therefore I welcome the President’s proclamation that elections will be held on March 2, 2020 and the joint statement by the representatives of the USA, UK and EU that “it is now essential to ensure free and fair elections which we are pleased to support with elections assistance and monitoring along with other colleagues in the international community.”
Unfortunately, those who have previously claimed to have championed the “return of democracy” to Guyana seem on a mission to destroy it at this time and are aggressively enlisting supporters to their anti-democratic crusade. Their first and most infamous adherent, who was never elected directly (the Guyanese electorate vote for a political party or grouping and its Presidential Candidate), but was selected to represent the interests of a particular political party, chose to renege on his sworn affiliation and responsibility to that party and their supporters and gifted their vote to the minority party to assault their interests. It would seem that the constitution failed the people and provided no protections against such brazen prostitution and trafficking in democracy but was more concerned with protecting his treacherous ability even though the Courts (all of them) found that his membership of the National Assembly was unconstitutional. The duly elected government, on the other hand, has been vilified, condemned and threatened on a daily basis and some members of the international community, Canada and the Caribbean Community in particular, have been chastised and browbeaten for not joining the chorus of condemnation and threatened sanctions. It is my suspicion that were CARICOM to emulate others in the diplomatic community that this would be a signal and justification for the intensification of the subversive campaign against the government and claims of victimization in myriad imaginative ways justifying serious and severe international sanction and even intervention. It is quite possible that Canada and CARICOM, like a majority of Guyanese, recognise that there is no constitutional crisis or political vacuum and no threat to democracy or rule of law and that there remains a President, government, and Parliament constitutionally empowered though some may claim, and wish, that none existed and chaos was the order of the day. The demand for early elections has been satisfied and WE READY.

Sincerely
Oscar Dolphin

---

---