By hook or by crook
Jan 06, 2019 , Kaieteur News, https://www.kaieteurnewsonline...by-hook-or-by-crook/
The APNU+AFC coalition is desperate to stay in power. It is so desperate that, with each passing day, it is signaling that it is not prepared to abide by the Constitution, which requires only a symbolic resignation of the Cabinet and President.
With the passage of a no-confidence motion, the Cabinet is expected to resign. The Executive falls, but the government remains in office until a new government is elected. The continuance in office is to prevent a vacuum in government. After all, somebody must steer the ship of state until elections are held.
Vice President Ramjattan is correct in asserting that the government retains its full panoply of powers. However, by convention, the government can exercise such powers but should not. It should be limited in terms of what it can do. It should not pass or introduce any major legislation – only that which is absolutely necessary for maintaining the functions of government – or sign any major international agreement. But this is purely by an unenforceable convention. In other words, the government cannot be legally compelled to act as a caretaker administration, even though it is morally obligated to do so.
Why then are the President and the Cabinet refusing to resign when for all intents and purposes they can only be forced out of office through elections? There are many reasons. The first is that the government is headstrong, belligerent and autocratic, and does not wish to be forced to resign, because of an opposition which is supposed to be worst possible alternative. The government therefore prefers to behave like a bully.
Yet, the Opposition did not try to kick the government when it was down, but instead, offered a dignified way out of its humiliation with a request for a meeting with the President to determine the next steps.
The government, however, is hell bent on staying in office by any means necessary. It has failed to have the Speaker reverse the passage of the no-confidence motion. The Speaker has declined the government’s invitation to reverse his ruling. In other words, the ruling stands.
The government’s next move is to launch constitutional challenges to the no-confidence motion. APNU and the AFC, when in opposition, had argued that parliament is sovereign. It is now ironically doing the same thing it castigated the PPPC for doing – asking the court to review the constitutionality of an act of the National Assembly.
As has been explained, the grounds upon which those challenges are to be made are meritless, and are not likely to invalidate the vote. The government is merely seeking to buy time, an act which constitutes an abuse of the Court.
And this brings us to the main reason why Cabinet is refusing to resign.
The reason is that the Constitution does not only insist on the resignation of Cabinet, but also, the holding of elections within ninety days. The government is scared of facing the electorate. It is afraid that it will be voted out of office if its holds elections this year.
But why should it be scared? The politics of Guyana is polarized. The PPP does not have the numbers to command a majority in the National Assembly. And therefore there is likely to be a minority government, whoever wins the Presidency. Delaying elections will not delay that outcome.
In fact, the APNU+AFC coalition should seek to take advantage of a support base that has been energized as a result of the passage of the no-confidence motion. Oil money is not going to make a difference. It is doubtful now whether Guyana will see any oil revenues before 2021.
Exxon is not going to rush into production in 2020 given Guyana’s political crisis, a crisis which will be made worse by the refusal to go to elections, and because of Venezuela’s continued aggression.
APNU+AFC has become desperate, and a desperate government is a dangerous government. The government is baring its fangs against Charrandass Persaud. It is now digging up dirt on him in the hope to make him an example. It wants to prosecute him and has concocted allegations of him being bribed for his vote.
The elements of bribery cannot be established. There are enough lawyers in the APNU+AFC to know that a vote in the National Assembly is not a public function and even if it were, it would require the government to show that Charrandass received monies to perform an improper function. How does one voting with one’s conscience constitute an improper function? How does voting, in general, constitute an improper act? There can be no case of bribery, even if the government can establish that money passed hands.
Guyana is heading back to its dark days of authoritarianism. The government is hell bent on staying in office, by hook or by crook. The PNC brought Guyana to its knees because it was prepared to hold on power by any means necessary. With the AFC now in its corner, the unwillingness to abide by the Constitution is a sign of what is to come.
