Power drunk PPP is the only obstacle in the way of constitutional reform – Ramjattan

- says PNCR realized the mistakes of the past and is ready for change

By Abena Rockcliffe Many have recognized the need for constitutional reform in Guyana but so far it seems like an unattainable ideal.

Khemraj Ramjattan, AFC Leader

The late President, L.F.S. Burnham

Leader of the Alliance For Change (AFC), Khemraj Ramjattan yesterday told Kaieteur News that while it is no longer possible to secure constitutional reform before the upcoming elections, Guyanese can rest assured that an AFC government would make it a reality. The attorney-at-law expressed confidence in the young coalition—A Partnership for National Unity (APNU)—that it would also seek to induce constitutional change if it wins the upcoming election. He said however, that the only way under the sun that the People’s Progressive Party/Civic (PPP/C) would support constitutional change, is if the party loses. The current Constitution of Guyana is the highest governing document. It officially came into effect on October 6, 1980. It was however not Guyana’s first constitution; previous to this one, Guyana had a different constitution that was enacted in 1966, upon the country attaining independent status. Many are convinced that the existing constitution places an unhealthy amount of power into the hands of the President and is commonly referred to as the “Burnham Constitution.” This reference is because it mirrors the administrative style of former President, the late Linden Forbes Sampson Burnham. Wikipedia has it that as “Burnham consolidated his control over Guyanese politics throughout the 1970s, he began to push for changes in the constitution that would muffle the opposition. He and his colleagues argued that the changes were necessary to govern in the best interest of the people, free of opposition interference.” That basically explains why the opposition cannot do much now. Because the constitution has been so drafted that government can operate without interference. When the PPP was in opposition, the Party had vowed that once it gains power, it would change certain aspects of the constitution, but the most contentious parts, such as the executive presidency remained intact despite a constitution reform process following the controversial 1997 General Elections. Ramjattan said yesterday that while constitutional reform is important to the AFC, unfortunately it cannot ensure its reality before the upcoming elections. He said that this is because “we see it so necessary to get rid of the PPP as soon as possible. Therefore, the first session in October (when the National Assembly reconvenes) will see a debate on the No confidence Motion. A No-Confidence Motion against the government has been tabled by the AFC. This Motion, once passed, could force President Donald Ramotar to call General Elections. The AFC has already secured the support of APNU, which when combined with the AFC, hold the majority in Parliament. Ramjattan said that if his party comes out on top, one of its first priorities would be to secure constitutional reform. He said, “The priorities of an AFC government would be clear. You can expect that the AFC will ensure that the President’s powers are reduced.” Ramjattan said that he believes that the APNU would support constitutional reform as well in or out of office. He opined that the members of the People’s National Congress Reform (PNCR)—the Party with majority stakes in the APNU—have realized how “foolish” it was to have such a constitution. The Parliamentarian said that what the PNCR government, led by Burnham, did was wrong and “it is now staring them in the face. They are regretting it. It is haunting them and they have learned.” Ramjattan, who was a long standing Member of the PPP, said he thinks the ruling Party would not support constitutional reform mainly because the Party’s current members do not believe in the separation of powers. The politician told Kaieteur News, “They are power drunk and can’t think of operating without the amount of power they have now…they are enjoying the power and simply (are) not willing to give it up.” Cultural activist Tacuma Ogunseye in recent writings said that there is a danger inherent in the passing of a No Confidence Motion without the most critical and necessary constitutional changes. He said “I will continue to argue that it is political suicide for the African leadership in Guyana to contemplate entering another election without first winning the struggle for constitutional reform to ensure shared governance after the elections or, at the least, a return to a system that allows parties – as is done in other countries – to enter into a coalition arrangement after the elections to form the government. I wish to reiterate what the present situation is: once the PPP/C wins the plurality, they get the presidency and the right to form the government and they can achieve this feat by one vote more than the other contesting parties.” Chairman of the AFC, Nigel Hughes had said that the  executive’s refusal to even respect motions of the National Assembly, and  the Attorney General’s advice to the President not to assent to bills  passed by the House, have demonstrated the real impotence of the  National Assembly. He said, “In Guyana, we now have a House that can pass motions but cannot enforce them. The National Assembly, whenever it sits, gets all dressed up but has nowhere to go…We have a President who is vested with all executive power, part of the parliament but not responsible to it; who has representatives in parliament who cannot be effectively censured or disciplined in spite  of their transgressions; and best of all who is not liable for any of  his actions either in the National Assembly or before any court.” “Where else in the world does the citizenry elect a king to rule over them with no responsibility for his actions to the very people who elected him?” Hughes questioned. Former executive member of the PPP, Ralph Ramkarran has called for a change in the system of governance, noting that the executive presidency is not answerable at all for executive decisions. Ramkarran said that the broken system must be repaired. Ramkarran, who chaired the Constitution Reform Commission in 1999-2000 said, “I have struggled mightily and for a long time, and so have many others, with ideas for an appropriate structure for our government, having regard to the specific challenges faced by Guyana. I had supported the current system because it allowed the largest party to retain the presidency. I felt that if a situation like the current one arose, a coalition government would be the natural outcome. Clearly I was wrong,” Ramkarran stated. Guyana has an executive presidency, answerable to neither parliament nor cabinet for executive decisions. The president is not bound by cabinet decisions, cannot be charged or sued, virtually cannot be impeached and controls the date for elections. “Where the president’s party does not have a majority (in parliament) and refuses to bring other forces in the government, chaos and gridlock prevail as at the present time”, Ramkarran stated.