Even democracy has to be protected from vagabonds

Mar 16, 2021 Features / Columnists, Peeping Tom

---

Kaieteur News – There was a greater reason why the Democrats wanted to impeach Donald Trump. After the insurrection at the Capitol, there were calls for Trump to be immediately removed from office.
But behind the impeachment proceedings, which failed to secure a conviction in the Senate, there was a larger cause: the Democrats and some Republicans wanted to ensure he could never run again for office. An impeachment would have sealed his fate.
The move to ensure that Trump could never run again for office was criticised as undemocratic. Democracy, it was said can only be free if all interested candidates are free to decide whether to run for office.
This is the basis in which the Lima Group, including Guyana under the APNU+AFC, had opted to not recognise Maduro as President of Venezuela even though he has won fair elections. The Lima Group and the Organization of American States insist that recent elections in Venezuela were not free because of the non-participation of the Opposition. They are not contending that these polls were rigged.
Trump was not convicted and therefore the Congress could not disbar him from ever holding public office again. One Constitutional office, however, feels that Trump can still be barred if it is established that he was involved in an insurrection against the State. A Commission of Investigation into the storming of the Capitol.
Trump has faced sanctions, including from his home state, as a result of the incident. And the pressure is piling up on him, all with the aims of making him an example and for ensuring that his political career ends. The intention is ultimately to disqualify him from contesting the 2024 elections.
But what about Guyana? The question has been asked as to whether given the actions of the APNU+AFC whether the coalition should not be disqualified from contesting democratic elections.
A strong moral case exists. It was evident that the APNU+AFC had intended to benefit from the shenanigans involving an attempt to foist false results on the electorate. The APNU+AFC convinced the majority of the population that it was not prepared to play by the rules and was intent on stealing a victory despite losing the elections.
A grouping such as this should have no place in democratic politics. But ironically, the very democratic argument can be used to argue that whatever the moral credentials of the APNU+AFC, and however much it tried to cheat its way back to political office, it would be a violation of democratic norms for the APNU+AFC to be disbarred from participating in office.
Some may argue why should this be so? After all no right is absolute, and the democratic right to participate in elections ought to be circumscribed by the duty to play by the rules.
If a boxer does not play by the rules and hits below the belt and does this deliberately and repeatedly, that boxer can be disqualified. If you cheat at sports, you can be banned for life. So what prevents the application of this same principle to politics? Why a political party which is engaged in a deliberate attempt to defraud an election, not be disqualified from contesting future elections.
One argument in favour of banning rogue parties and grouping is that even democracy has to be protected. It cannot be left to the mercy of political extremists and vagabonds, including those who supported and cheered the cheaters.
This country was held to ransom for five months while there was a blatant and barefaced attempt to steal the elections. It was so shameless that there was a plan to invent results, and then later, to disqualify arbitrarily, valid votes.
So why then should anyone have a difficulty in demanding that the APNU+AFC be permanently debarred from holding political office. Well, one reason for opposing this course of action is because regardless of the compelling evidence which already exists, and which leaves little doubt as to what was afoot, there needs to be due process. Otherwise, the debarring becomes an arbitrary exercise.
This is why there should be no further delay in establishing a credible international commission of inquiry. Once that commission is established and its findings made public, then the necessary steps can then be taken to move a constitutional amendment, which would effectively allow for the legal sanctions against those attempting a coup against democracy.
This is why this column will continue to insist that all those who are complicit in the attempt to rig the elections must face the sanction of the court. And by ensuring that the guilty are punished would be much better justice than arbitrarily banning the APNU+AFC from any future participation in an election.
Unfortunately, the PPP/C has become a blow-blow party. It has made no provision in this year’s Budget for the establishment of such a commission to investigate electoral banditry.

(The views expressed in this article are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the opinions of this newspaper.)

---

---