Reconvening Parliament without delay is a test of democratic practice

Oct 01, 2025 Features / Columnists, Peeping Tom

---

Kaieteur News – Democracy is not only about the right of citizens to cast their ballots. It is also about ensuring that the institutions of government function with immediacy and accountability in the aftermath of elections.

Chief among those institutions is Parliament, the body entrusted with providing oversight of the Executive. If the people’s representatives are not seated and their voices not heard, the system risks imbalance. For this reason, Parliament should be convened at the earliest opportunity after elections. It should not have to wait weeks or months, but should be promptly convened.

The Constitution of Guyana recognizes the importance of avoiding a vacuum in legislative authority. Article 69(1) provides that Parliament must meet within four months of the end of the preceding session.

But this four-month limit is an outer boundary. It is a safeguard against indefinite delay. It was never intended to suggest that the Executive may leisurely wait four months before summoning the National Assembly. To treat this maximum allowance as the default would be a distortion of both the letter and the spirit of constitutional governance.

The oversight function of Parliament cannot be overstated. It is the forum where the government must answer questions, defend policies, justify expenditures, and account for its stewardship. Without Parliament, there is no scrutiny of executive action, no opportunity for the opposition to voice concerns in a structured forum, and no means by which the people’s representatives can check and balance the use of power. Every day without a sitting Parliament is a day in which the Executive operates without the full measure of legislative accountability. That gap, however brief, weakens the democratic chain.

Some may argue that the Constitution affords the President time, and therefore no breach occurs if Parliament is convened late within the four-month window. But compliance with democracy is not a matter of doing the bare minimum required by law. It is about living up to the higher principle of governance by consent of the governed. The people elected their representatives to sit in Parliament and to serve immediately after the elections and not at the President’s convenience.

Also, the suggestion that Parliament is in its “summer recess” is equally misplaced. Parliament was not adjourned for holidays. It was dissolved for elections. Once dissolved, there is no Assembly that can claim to be in recess. The new Parliament, therefore, must be convened afresh. To equate dissolution with recess is to misunderstand the Constitution and to trivialize the democratic process.

Issuing a proclamation to summon the new Parliament is not a ceremonial formality; it is the single most important act to signal that governance is resuming in accordance with the will of the electorate. Every delay in this proclamation fuels unnecessary speculation, creates uncertainty, and undermines accountability. Prompt action, on the other hand, conveys respect for the electorate, confidence in the democratic process, and a readiness to embrace scrutiny.

It is sometimes said that the four-month period is “directory” rather than mandatory, meaning that failure to convene Parliament within that timeframe does not automatically invalidate subsequent sittings. While that may be so as a matter of legal interpretation, it is irrelevant to the question of good governance. Why should a President delay when there is no necessity to do so? Why should a nation be left in limbo when it could be assured of a functioning legislature within days? The availability of a legal loophole does not justify its use when higher principles call for immediacy.

The framers of the Constitution wisely included the four-month cap to prevent abuse. But they assumed that Presidents would act in good faith and convene Parliament swiftly. Indeed, democratic practice around the world shows that legislatures are typically convened as soon as practicable after elections, often within days or weeks. To wait months would raise eyebrows in any country that values parliamentary oversight.

The case for immediate reconvening, therefore, is compelling. The people have spoken through the ballot box. Their representatives stand ready to take their oaths, to scrutinize policies, to debate laws, and to defend the public interest. The Executive has no valid excuse to delay. It should not hide behind constitutional allowances, nor should any one  mischaracterize dissolution as recess. What is required is a simple, swift proclamation by the President summoning the National Assembly.

The health of our democracy depends on the immediacy of accountability. The longer Parliament remains closed, the longer the Executive governs unchecked. A President who delays Parliament weakens democracy; a President who summons Parliament without hesitation strengthens it. The choice, in this moment, is clear.

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

---

• accountability, ballots, Democracy, democratic practice, Parliament, Peeping Tom

---