Dear Editor,

LET me first wish outgoing Deputy Chief of Mission of the United States Embassy, Bryan Hunt, all the best in his future endeavours. Attention is now turned to some areas in his farewell speech, which bordered on law, human relations and governance in this country.

It has become customary to see the fault lines in the management of the nation’s business and divisions in society as the responsibility of a bad constitution. Recognising — in many instances standing alone on this matter — that few, if any, have been able to say to this nation how reform would bring respect for the people, laws and good governance, the contention here is that even where the Constitution enshrines articles to secure racial equality and accountability, these are being observed in the breach.

To bring home the gravity of the situation facing this nation, observations are made to Hunt’s comments, and the evidence provided is based on the Constitution and the disregard for this instrument on the part of those responsible for enforcing same:
1. Divisions in the society:- the Guyana Constitution, in its preamble, acknowledges diversity in the society, inclusive of race, and requires of the people to celebrate same. Institutions are enshrined in said instrument to achieve this, as with the Human Rights Commission, Rights of the Child Commission, Women and Gender Equality Commission, Ethnic Relations Commission, Indigenous Rights Commission. The non-functioning of some of these commissions lies not in the Constitution, but the non-establishment of them by those tasked with the responsibility for their activation;

2. Inclusion in the political processes:- Article 13, in outlining the Principal Political Objective of the State, mandates inclusionary democracy built on the involvement of groups in the management and decision-making processes of the State that directly affect their well-being. This critical and vital article awaits legislation to cement its benefits in all facets of governance.

3. Public accountability:- The Integrity Commission, Public Procurement Commission, and Public Servant Appellate Tribunal are enshrined in the Constitution, yet they are still to be established

4. Winner-takes-all politics:- This approach to politics ought not to be, given that the Constitution identifies the Leader of the Opposition under the Executive branch, where roles and functions are outlined. This in itself speaks to a responsibility and duty in the shared management of the day-to-day business of Government. Respecting the spirit and intent of this partnership and oversight responsibility would see and allow for the opposition to support, propose, oppose, demand and receive information on governance where necessary, and be guided by just cause. Yet this does not happen.

The Opposition seems more comfortable in the role of “opposing for opposing sake”, and dedicates tremendous energies to ensuring the incumbent does not succeed, in order to increase its chances at the next poll.

The Cabinet, too, is inclined to disregard any idea or proposal that comes from the Opposition, even when it is sound, on the notion that ‘it is we time now.’

This is not the function of the constitution, but is merely popular thinking.

In regional and local governments since 1992, the diversity is becoming more pronounced, yet it is being ignored by the Cabinet (Executive) and Legislative branches. Articles 75 and 76 allow for autonomy in the local democratic organs, which includes the power to raise and dispose of revenue for the areas’ benefit and welfare. What the named articles await is legislation to make things happen for the people.

Careful look at our regional and central government systems will see similarities to the USA federal and state governments.

36 years after the constitution, the executive and legislature are content to operate solely with the caretaker Article 77, where the regions submit their plans and central government funds it. This works for the politicians, either out of the absence of will and commitment to realise the devolution of power to the other tiers of government, or the sense of power they desire from controlling who gets what and how much within each region, which is used as a sledge hammer or dispensed as a treat if the region is lost or won by them, or the desire for political control is fulfilled.

Local government authorities are allowed to have their own by-laws and can make laws in pursuit of the developmental plan for their communities. There has been significant reform to the local government system. The problems being witnessed today in this area of government — including that of the neighbourhood democratic councils that have tied votes and are not allowed to function because of political upmanship, do not lie in the constitution but in a zero-sum approach rooted in the notion of “my way or no way”, or “is awe time.”

The Legislature, according to the constitution (Article 50) is the supreme organ of democratic power in the country, and allows, in Article 171 (1), for any member to bring a bill, motion, or so forth before the House to be deliberated on and decision taken. There are parliamentary committees comprising members from both sides of the House. The opposition is chair of committees such as the Public Accounts Committee, which has oversight responsibility for the Cabinet/Executive management of the Government and state’s business.

The disinterest to take these roles seriously is not the function of the constitution.

There is the Parliamentary Select Committee on Constitutional Reform, which is charged with the responsibility for necessary review and adjustment (Article 119A). In that no one hears anything about this committee — whether it is established, who are the members, and what work they are doing — would not be addressed with constitutional reform.

5. The media and people:- Where the constitution (Article 146) expressly protects the right to freedom of speech, sharing of information, knowledge and ideas, the media and people have scope here. The society has to arrive at a stage where ethics are the driving force to informing and supporting public conduct, including the party or group voted for.

The conundrum this society faces here is that of a refusal to accept that the party/group whose leadership one supports can err, given that none is God; and where an error or misstep has been made, to make it known demands and ensures remedial action. This requires a stronger and more vocal civil society, including the media, trade union, academia, religious and legal communities, et al, who will be the conscience of the nation, fearlessly and consistently pursuing this path.

There is convergence with Hunt’s view that on corruption “all political parties must adopt a zero tolerance policy for their officials and elected representatives. We need to see parties holding their own accountable rather than defending or overlooking bad behaviour.” And on realising a better society “that civil society and the media must be empowered though greater transparency in government’s financial decision-making.” This empowerment has to be taken, not given, because it never will be, especially when it threatens the comfort of the politicians and the powerful.

No constitution, however perfect or imperfect, will bring about desired results when even the good within is ignored by the political leadership, and society fails to hold them to account and demand they operate consistent with the instrument, in spite of its shortcoming, which notably in ours also allows for reform after review; but the constitutional body remains inactive. The preeminent absence of political will and commitment to understand and respect the constitution, coupled with the resignation and acceptance to hide behind an instrument, even though it empowers the society to move the needle forward, has us in this morass today.

Yours sincerely,
LINCOLN LEWIS