Tinkering with the Constitution is no longer sufficient

Sep 20, 2024 Features / Columnists, Peeping Tom

---

Kaieteur News – The present state of Guyana’s Constitution is a reflection of the futility of half-hearted reforms. The 1999 Constitutional Reform process, heralded as a watershed moment in Guyana’s political and legal history, did not structurally alter the 1980 socialist constitution.

With each passing year, this cumbersome relic continues to groan under the weight of piecemeal amendments and meaningless commissions, all of which serve as a reminder of the country’s flirtation with socialism and its legacy of hollow bureaucracy.

To claim that the current constitutional reform process should simply “review” the changes from 1999 is to be sold the same old rickety cart of reform. It is a cart weighed down with political baggage, inefficiencies, and the lingering scent of ideological decay. This review of a failed reform process is the bureaucratic equivalent of rearranging deck chairs on a sinking ship.

The truth is, nothing short of a comprehensive and radical overhaul of Guyana’s Constitution will suffice if we are serious about charting a course towards genuine democracy, accountability, and national development. The people of this country deserve a constitutional document that is not only reflective of modern governance standards but also one that they can understand.

The current Constitution, with its Byzantine structure and antiquated socialist provisions, reads more like a doctrinal text than a practical guide to governance. It is a hodgepodge of legal jargon and ideological detritus, as accessible to the average citizen as quantum mechanics.

Let us speak plainly: Guyana’s Constitution, as it stands, is a document trapped in a time warp. Its socialist orientation may have suited the heady days of the Cooperative Republic’s early aspirations, but those days are long gone. The transition to socialism never materialized, and now the Constitution’s emphasis on centralized authority serves no purpose other than to hold the country back.

This is not simply a case of adapting the Constitution to reflect modern realities, though that is certainly necessary. No, what we need is a root-and-branch transformation—a return to first principles, a rethinking of what a constitution should be. Guyana, like every other modern nation, needs a Constitution that empowers its people, limits the powers of its leaders, and creates structures for meaningful accountability. It needs a document like the South African Constitution, which not only spells out the rights and responsibilities of citizens but does so in a language that any literate person can grasp.

The South African Constitution is widely praised as one of the most progressive and comprehensible constitutions in the world. It sets out clear, unequivocal rights and places limits on the powers of government. It is a Constitution designed for the people, by the people, with the recognition that true democracy requires transparency, accountability, and simplicity. Guyana’s Constitution, on the other hand, is an impenetrable labyrinth of legalese and bureaucratic doublespeak, more suited to an era of ideological dogma than to a vibrant, functioning democracy.

One of the more absurd aspects of the current Constitution is its proliferation of commissions, most of which serve little or no useful purpose. The 1999 reforms gave birth to a slew of these commissions—commissions for human rights, commissions for ethnic relations, commissions for gender equality—none of which have made any meaningful impact on the lives of ordinary Guyanese. These commissions, while perhaps well-intentioned, are little more than expensive, ineffective appendages grafted onto an already overburdened system.

Instead of fostering justice, equality, or accountability, these commissions have become the bureaucratic equivalent of dead weight. Any serious constitutional reform process must begin by jettisoning these useless commissions and replacing them with structures that have real power to hold the government accountable.

And what of the presidency? In its current form, the Guyanese presidency is an office of near-absolute power. The President, once elected, is accountable to almost no one. The Cabinet, nominally an advisory body, has no real authority to challenge presidential decisions, and Parliament, when not hamstrung by partisanship, remains largely a spectator in the exercise of executive power. The idea that the President can act with such impunity, free from meaningful oversight or accountability, is anathema to democratic principles. Yet, this unchecked executive power is enshrined in the Constitution.

The 1999 reforms did little to curb the presidential powers. Some changes were made, yes, but these were superficial at best. What Guyana needs now is a Constitution that places real checks on executive power, that elevates the role of Parliament, and that ensures that the President is subject to the rule of law like every other citizen. The idea of an imperial presidency is a relic of the past and has no place in a modern, democratic Guyana.

The time has come for Guyana to abandon the trappings of its failed socialist experiment and adopt a Constitution that reflects the values of democracy, accountability, and transparency. The country’s name itself—the Cooperative Republic of Guyana—is an anachronism, a nod to a bygone era of socialist idealism that no longer exists. Guyana is not a cooperative republic. The name should reflect that reality.

Enough with the tinkering. Enough with the piecemeal reforms. What Guyana needs is a wholesale reimagining of its Constitution—a document that is easy to understand, rooted in the principles of democracy, and free of the dead weight of commissions and socialist fantasies. It is time for Guyana to move forward, not with one foot in the past, but with both feet firmly planted in the future. Anything less would be a disservice to the people of this country and to the promise of genuine constitutional reform.

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

---

• amendments, commissions, Constitution, flirtation, political

---