The PNC/R is a repeat offender

Feb 21, 2022 Features / Columnists, Peeping Tom

---

Article 13 of the Constitution of Guyana is unenforceable. It is merely aspirational and forms part of a section of the Constitution which serves as a guide, rather than an enforceable edict.
Article 13 states, in effect, that it shall be the principal objective of the country’s political system to establish an inclusionary system of democracy, one that provides opportunities for the participation of citizens and their organisations in the management and decision-making of the State.
Unfortunately, this proviso has been widely interpreted as directing a need for executive power sharing – an interpretation that is at best ingenious. Ironically, of course, the framers of the revised Constitution did not specify the parametres of this inclusion.
Article 13 forms part of the Constitution that is non-justiciable – meaning it cannot be enforced by the Courts. However, the fact that a proviso of the Constitution is unenforceable does not render it meaningless. Ironically, it appears that those touting greater respect for Article 13 have overlooked the fact that what they need to bolster their cause is a constitutional amendment, which would make Article 13 legally enforceable.
During the drafting of the Indian Constitution, there was a draft clause submitted which called for the section of the Constitution which deals with directives of state policy, to become enforceable. But this clause was rejected in the final document.
Those who are keen to strengthen Guyana’s inclusionary democracy should be advocating for Article 13 and other related articles to be enforceable. But to do so, they would equally have to propose the parameters of inclusion, something over which consensus has been elusive.
The PNC/R only demands power sharing when it is in Opposition. But when it is in government, it ignores its own promise to share power.
The PPP/C has no interest in executive power sharing. Years ago, it circumvented any commitment to power sharing when it took the position that the development of trust must be a pre-condition to shared governance.
The APNU+AFC had committed to sharing power with the Opposition if it won office in 2015. When it did, it forgot about its promise. But even worse, the PNC/R emasculated its Coalition partner, the AFC, treating it as its doormat, seizing and assuming parts of the AFC’s ministerial portfolios and dropping the AFC as a partner in the 2018 local government elections.
Now there is a chorus line complaining about the failure to invite the PNC/R to a privately organised oil and gas conference. Invite them for what? How does an invitation to a conference indicate any movement towards an inclusionary democracy? Does inviting someone to a wedding mean that the intended bride and groom want the invitees to play an active role in their marriage?
A constitutional amendment to make the Principles and Bases of the Political, Economic and Social System justiciable would present serious problems in relation to other articles of this section of the Constitution. That same section provides for land to go to the tiller.
The late Vic Puran was one of Guyana’s finest legal minds. He once toyed with the idea of the legal enforceability of ‘to the tiller’. But he knew that should this non-justiciable right be given enforceability, it would upturn property rights and anyone could go and squat anywhere and claim they were tillers of the land. Vic in the end, it is believed, settled for the notion that while the Principles and Bases of the Political, Economic and Social System were non-justiciable, this did not preclude the Courts from making a declaration – that is a non-enforceable statement as to any conflict between any law and or the Constitution.
Thus far, there have been no such opportunities for the Courts to make any such pronouncements. It would have to take a forward-thinking judge like the late Ian Chang to even contemplate going down this route.
But there is an even more fundamental issue which has to be addressed. How can we speak about power sharing for the Opposition when the Opposition is a repeat offender when it comes to electoral rigging? How can you share power with those who wish to steal it?
If a burglar breaks into your home and is caught, that thief cannot demand a right to share in the loot, which he stole. The PNC/R has a history of rigging elections and in 2020, it was part of the APNU+AFC sought to benefit from the rigging of elections.
This is a violation of a fundamental principle of our Constitution: that sovereignty belongs to the people. What the APNU+AFC did in 2020 was an affront to the right of the people to elect a government of their choice and, by implication, to remove a government through the ballot.
The PNC/R lacks the moral authority to demand any share in the country’s governance. It is yet to prove that it can be trusted to participate in free and fair elections, much less in the sharing of executive power.
(The views expressed in this article are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the opinions of this newspaper.)

 

---

---