“Coup d’état” fails in Guyana
I am using the word coup d’état loosely as many commentators and journalists have done since the early 20th century. Literally, it means the army takeover of power. But in academic analysis and journalism, coup is referred to the removal of a government in general, except by elections. So if within a party, a cabal in the leadership removes the Prime Minister, you can say there was a coup. The term’s loose usage is now generally accepted.
This was the headline of my January 1, 2019 column, “Power grab in Guyana the world must condemn.” I didn’t want to use the term power grab again, so I settled for coup d’état. There was no question in my mind that the no confidence vote was constitutionally sound. What the leaders in the AFC and APNU were doing was simply engaging in a power grab or attempting a coup d’état.
What is interesting to note at this very minute is that no court has granted a stay of the Chief Justice’s decision, meaning that the government has to resign. As it stands, the court ruled that the political leadership of the government has been defeated. There is no other authority higher than the Chief Justice, except the Court of Appeal. Once the Court of Appeal has not heard a request for a stay, then the political leadership of the government has to resign. As I write, there is no stay. The APNU+AFC lost a vote of no confidence.
If today the APNU+AFC ministers including the president and