Bringing the opposition into Cabinet in executive power-sharing … this requires careful thought – Pt I
THE proponents arguing for national unity based on executive power-sharing that includes bringing the opposition into the Cabinet clearly have not given any serious thought to the issue.
Among this group no one has made known a model to show how it can work and how the politicians will be held accountable to the people and operate in the people’s interests. Neither has there been any explanation as to what will happen to our parliamentary system which is built on bi-partisanship (opposition and government sides) and the groups serving as checks and balances on each other.
In every society, regardless of what one may say or do, conflicts will always exist, since every individual does not think the same nor strive to achieve the same things. Politics, by its very nature, is a competitive process and every political party strives to be in control of the executive. For government to work for the people it requires checks and balances in every system and it is for these reasons a genuine and formidable opposition party is required.
The emergence of mass-based political activism in the 1940s (Political Affairs Committee) and political parties in 1950s (PPP, PNC and UF) came about as result of what was perceived as a ganging up between the colonial power and merchant/privileged class against the masses. The fight for internal self-government and then independence was driven by a deep desire by the masses to bring an end to political domination. The achievement of this was seen as important for the people to determine their destiny and make real their hopes, dreams and aspirations.
The realisation of these required not only challenging the status quo, but putting in place structures to regulate behaviours in the society which were premised on the principle of equality, where all are held to the same standards and play by the same rules. The structures that were put in place were grounded and guided by international charters, conventions and covenants, and not pulled out of the air or based on how one felt. The pre-independence constitution which was tried and tested was used to exploit the masses and it was for that reason a new constitution was made.
Constitutions embody the cultural dynamics in a society and is usually improved upon in pursuit of a fair and just environment.
The Guyana Constitution, which some are demanding be either scrapped or changed without advancing any argument, except to say it was written by Forbes Burnham and the President is above the instrument, is a flimsy. The president cannot be above an instrument that she/he has sworn to uphold and discharge duties without fear, favour, ill will or appreciation consistent with the said instrument. This is basic commonsense.
We live in a society where politicians vying for the seat of government are on record as calling for the constitution to be rewritten in order that a Bill of Rights can be ensconced. Here again, another situation is seen where persons do not understand the constitution or have not read it, yet are seeking to speak about it with conviction. The USA, in constitutional amendments, has ensconced 10 articles known as the Bills of Rights. The Guyana Constitution has within it more than 10 rights which are referred to as “Protection of Fundamental Rights and Freedoms of the Individual” (Title I). The citizens need to ask the question: “Which rights are we being asked to surrender in order to bring us in line with the USA’s ten Bill of Rights?
Guyana can well take a page from the USA’s experiences where laws have been instituted to strengthen not only the Bill of Rights, but the constitution in general. In Guyana there is a clear absence of will, interest and commitment by lawmakers to strengthen the constitution through laws. This is even more noticeable, given that the constitution empowers every Member of Parliament to bring motions and bills to the National Assembly that would allow for the advancement of the people’s welfare.
The people are today being asked to either change the constitution or write a new one. It makes sense to change what is known, tried, tested, failed or inimical to our interests. The question needs to be asked: “Have we reached this stage, and if so, is it based on evidence flowing from the application of the constitution?”
Clearly among those calling for change are those who are unaware of the contents of the constitution, or they do not understand it. A simple litmus test of what is confronting this nation regarding the absence of political will, interest and commitment, is seen in the non-functioning of the Parliamentary Standing Committee for Constitutional Reform (Article 119A). This committee did not work when the PPP/C controlled the National Assembly. This committee did not work when the Opposition controlled the Assembly. In this Parliament, the nation is yet to hear if/when the committee is/will be appointed.
If this basic constitutional responsibility was never executed during the life of the last two parliaments, the people ought to be very cautious in approaching or endorsing any mechanism that would put the two groups in one Cabinet.
There will be no checks and balances, no competition for the people’s votes by doing right for the people. In reviewing this nation’s political evolution, attention is drawn to two important incidents, in 1948 and in 1999. In 1948, during the industrial unrest at the Demerara sugar estates, workers lost their lives, while some were injured. The colonial government responded to public outcries for justice to be served and established a commission of inquiry into the incident. In 1999, when public servants were protesting for improved working conditions, the State turned its guns on them at the John Fernandes Wharf. Seventeen were injured.
Public outcries for justice to be meted out for the workers were met with stony silence and insults from an indigenous government, who later instigated a split in the labour movement in response to the call. What is clearly evident here is that the call for justice on identical matters had a more positive response from a colonial government than our own. We need to take this opportunity to ask ourselves searching questions, less we risk plunging the nation off the precipice by entrusting our welfare, by changing universal principle of democratic governance, to a group of people that have among them some that are not unmindful of running roughshod over us.
[To be continued]
