People are painting the Constitution as ineffective when they haven’t read it, don’t understand it and have a personal hatred for Forbes Burnham.

September 27,2017

Source

I am responding to Terrence Campbell (‘RISE’s contribution clearly recognised that not all changes required amendment to the Constitution,’ SN, September 25) and Tarron Khemraj (‘There has to be a completely new constitution,’ SN, September 26).

Mr Campbell is being deceptive in making the assertion that I am “obstinate in [my] opposition to constitutional reform.”  My advocacy for respecting and upholding the rule of law, and notably the Guyana Constitution that enshrines provision for constitutional reform (Article 119A) which my letter (September 24) concluded with, makes the case for his recklessness in treating with this serious matter.

Whether the group RISE issued a statement that “some of these changes require constitutional amendments and others can be effected via legislation” what Campbell reportedly told the University of Guyana sponsored symposium is that there is need for constitutional reform to bring about a constituency based system.  His statement is wrong and misleading.

Were Article 160 (Electoral System) read and understood and attention paid to the evolving political environment it would have been realised the 2016 local government elections fielded constituency based candidates, and this was made possible not through constitutional reform but the Act that allows for creating the formula for the people to elect their representatives.

There continues to be confusion between the Constitution which establishes the framework and the legislation which puts the meat on the framework. This must be sorted out lest the nation continues to be misinformed and misguided, thereby leaving the politicians to run wild and wreak havoc on the nation and continue their abuse of the people.

The Constitution has more than 200 articles, but Mr Khemraj takes objection to one (Article 160) stating “there has to be a completely new Constitution” because this offending article allows for “individual rights [to be] trumped by group interests.” This argument doesn’t hold because the individual’s rights and freedoms (Title 1) still await legislation to give them meaning. If Mr Khemraj is speaking about political representation, nothing prevents the parties from putting in place a system that would ensure a list reflecting the will of the people, the people from having a say on who they want on the list, or holding to account those who are elected to serve. In fact, the Constitution allows such latitude and accountability.

For instance, the PNC was onto something progressive when it started primaries to elect its presidential candidate. This could have been built on, and it should be noted this act did not require constitutional reform, in the same way as some could run in the local government elections as independents and in the constituency based system. What is lacking in our society is vision, commitment, and will to make the Constitution work for all.

I never seen something like this before in all my travels to, and observations of other societies where people are throwing up their hands and cowering behind an instrument they paint as ineffective, when those who are driving the calls have not read this document, don’t understand it, and have a personal hatred for the man, Forbes Burnham, under whose leadership it was established.

They regurgitate or are victims of the propaganda, and so despise the instrument. Some have taken this ridiculousness further by arguing the referendum was rigged, so out with the 1980 Constitution, but they want the constitution given to us at independence by the British when the people were not even given the opportunity to cast a ballot on it.

In their personally imposed torment these proponents are holding society hostage, refusing to see that should attention be paid to the Constitution in its present form and demands made of the politicians to act in concert with it, this society could be further along the development continuum than it is. It is time to stop misleading the society, while demands must be made of those who call for scrapping the constitution or reforming it to represent their position by being truthful and constructive.

We the people must be unflinching in holding them to account, for like the self-serving politicians they do this country a grave disservice and are retarding our development.

Yours faithfully,

Lincoln Lewis 

Both sides in this important debate have strong arguments. It's a complex issue. For me, the question is: how soon will the Constitution be reformed?

Gilbakka posted:

Both sides in this important debate have strong arguments. It's a complex issue. For me, the question is: how soon will the Constitution be reformed?

Hopefully in our lifetime.

Django posted:

Gilbakka posted:

Both sides in this important debate have strong arguments. It's a complex issue. For me, the question is: how soon will the Constitution be reformed?

Hopefully in our lifetime.

Bai, me cyaaan't wait. Me plan fo kick de bucket soon.

Gilbakka posted:

Django posted:

Gilbakka posted:

Both sides in this important debate have strong arguments. It's a complex issue. For me, the question is: how soon will the Constitution be reformed?

Hopefully in our lifetime.

Bai, me cyaaan't wait. Me plan fo kick de bucket soon.

Well Bai,i am sure we know ultimate of life.

Gilbakka posted:

Both sides in this important debate have strong arguments. It's a complex issue. For me, the question is: how soon will the Constitution be reformed?

Lewis is wrong. This is one of his letters My response is

My response in more focused form will be later. I have to go to the Gym.

Is constituency voting feasible?

September 27,2017

Source

Dear Editor,

Recently in your newspaper, RISE, a discussion group, came out with the suggestion that Guyana revert to constituency voting.  Frankly, is this feasible?  The proportional representation system was introduced to try and overcome the racial politics of the Guyanese people. At that time our population showed that an overall majority of constituencies were dominated by one race, hence, say about 30-40% of our population could never expect to govern.

It is suggested that if we are ever to have an honest, responsible government, we should revert to the first constitution which introduced proportional representation (PR).

This original constitution should be reinstated for three years, during which time the amendments which our governments have made should be studied, and even the voting system for government can be considered.

The first PR election resulted in a coalition government with the PNC and the UF.  However, power corrupts, and, it would appear, that happened.  Some of the abuse and amendments made over time, were as follows:

1. The overseas vote was falsified.
2. The change of selection from the representative list.
3. The dismissal of members of parliament if they did not vote the party line.

These, among others, took away power from the people along with our socialist dictatorship, with its hopeless bureaucratic system which causes endless wasted hours as you wait to pay a bill, have a meeting, etc, etc, and we wonder why we stagnate?

Socialism works under the monastic system.  But under the politician, only a small minority gets wealthy.  King Sugar has become a liability under state-owned socialism.

We do not hear about bauxite.  However, Guyana is blessed, as suddenly gold pops up as a saviour (mainly private sector production), and the new promise of oil? Is it a future blessing or curse?

By the way, what has happened to that US$5 million that has been ‘mislaid’ on the sale of our GTT shares?  Any developments?

Yours faithfully,

John Willems

The above is absurd. Guyana is already one constituency electorate.  Chopping that up per present existing district  for a lower house legislative representative is one to one relationship. Overlapping them for an upper house representative means the representative has to operate over two districts.  This is just an example.

We had many constitutions. I do not know which he is referring to as the original. Maybe he means the last british constitution before the 1980 one. One cannot comment unless one knows what he means.

We need a return to a Westminster model constitution.

Our current system is Westminster model. We need to get to a hybrid Westminster model as Canada and India or non territorial federal

It is funny to watch everyone talk about constitutional reform.

I would like to remind everyone that the current AFC/PNC criminals ran an election campaign with electoral reform being at the forefront of their agenda.

I do not see anyone reigning these AFC/PNC crooks or holding them responsible for not keeping their promises. Moses is one of the biggest liars, he was the loudest proponent for constitutional reform during the campaign.

There will no reform under the AFC/PNC. They love the constitution exactly the way it is.  The PPP will return to office and the constitution will remain the way it is for quite a while to come.

yuji22 posted:

It is funny to watch everyone talk about constitutional reform.

I would like to remind everyone that the current AFC/PNC criminals ran an election campaign with electoral reform being at the forefront of their agenda.

I do not see anyone reigning these AFC/PNC crooks or holding them responsible for not keeping their promises. Moses is one of the biggest liars, he was the loudest proponent for constitutional reform during the campaign.

There will no reform under the AFC/PNC. They love the constitution exactly the way it is.  The PPP will return to office and the constitution will remain the way it is for quite a while to come.

 

Suh this is "Class Post"

your followers got to be kindergartners.

yuji22 posted:

It is funny to watch everyone talk about constitutional reform.

I would like to remind everyone that the current AFC/PNC criminals ran an election campaign with electoral reform being at the forefront of their agenda.

I do not see anyone reigning these AFC/PNC crooks or holding them responsible for not keeping their promises. Moses is one of the biggest liars, he was the loudest proponent for constitutional reform during the campaign.

There will no reform under the AFC/PNC. They love the constitution exactly the way it is.  The PPP will return to office and the constitution will remain the way it is for quite a while to come.

 

It is a discussion on constitutional reform. If you do not have anything to say with respect to that shut the hell up. Every thread gets turned into a grievance thread with empty headed buttholes like you

Where are the ideas of the luminaries on Constitutional Reform?

September 28,2017

Source

Dear Editor, 

The APNU and the AFC had bemoaned their helplessness to stop the PPP/C Government from doing what it had so desired to the detriment of the masses while in opposition. Hence, they saw Constitutional Reform as a requisite for controlling the abuse of power by future governments. Constitutional Reform was high on the Coalition’s Manifesto on their campaign and why not-there was NIS monies invested in the Berbice Bridge to offer a sweetheart deal to a few private investors and Marriot built with state funds in an act of vengeance to create competition for the owner of a business perceived to be an arch-enemy of the PPP/C-just to name a few.

After 23 years in office, the misuse of power and complacency had met the precipice of intolerance-hence victory for the coalition. As early as July 2015, PM Nagamootoo started talks on Constitutional Reform with UNDP representatives and got assurance of help. By September, he initiated a Steering Committee on Constitutional Reform” headed by Nigel Hughes and a report was submitted back to PM in April 2016.That report remained a secret.

At the symposium held by the Carter Center, late in May 2017, the center highlighted the need for reform to allow for individual candidates to run for presidency. The Center reaffirms that as it is now-the constitution rules in Guyana limit all candidature for the office of the presidency and for the members of the national assembly to those who join party lists.

Carter Center said that an amendment is urgently needed to allow individual candidates to participate in elections; this will place an incentive for voters to vote across party and communal lines.
The Center cited that presently, there is no legislation related to the regulation and operation of political parties. In a nut shell, Carter Center touched at the heart of what is required in Constitutional Reform in Guyana. This is the gospel that the luminaries in society should be preaching to the people because the Carter Center acknowledges that the desire for Constitutional Reform has to be driven by the citizens.

I see people writing of ‘Backward Guyana and what it does to poor people’ and ‘Socialism is a superior system to capitalism’ and ‘A new party is coming on stream’. The luminaries seem to lack the vision to identify that constitutional impropriety is the root cause of our social and economic problems. I see little or nothing emanating from their pen on Constitutional Reform. As a result, food for thought on the subject remains at a minimal among the populace. In the absence of ideas from the luminaries, the masses will become moribund-where will the DRIVING FORCE for Constitutional Reform come from?

At the launch of the EITI in February 2017, Nagamootoo said that, “Those who think that Constitutional Reform is a slogan, or that it could be easily achieved, our history has shown that it is a fight, it is a struggle.” I wish if he could have elaborated on whom and by whom that ‘fight’ and ‘struggle’ had ensued. Clearly, Nagamootoo and the Coalition’s former obsession  with Constitutional Reform are dying, despite $80M being budgeted for same.

It is not by any stroke of brilliance that Anil Nandalall had accused Nagamootoo of trying to railroad Constitutional Reform by virtue of Nagamootoo presenting a ‘Constitutional Reform Consultative Bill’ to parliament. A few days ago while addressing the gathering on the theme, ‘Constitutional Reform-to court brave change or to leave well enough alone’ Anil while expressing his lack of desire for CR as not being synonymous with the PPP, is fully aware that his sentiment is shared by the entire leadership of his party.

Anil is aware of the liberties, the present constitution gives to politicians in power, having been there. Nagamootoo having arrived there, now feels compelled to filibuster by advocating a ‘Constitutional Reform Consultative Bill’ having previously given the UNDP the assurance that he was interested in Constitutional Reform. The reality check is that none of the politicians wants Constitutional Reform.

While the coalition is enjoying the ride, the PPP/C is basking in the sun, identifying and exposing the flaws of the Coalition and laughing at the cries of the Coalition’s supporters-some of them are uttering that even while the PPP/C enriched themselves at the expense of the people, ‘things were better’.

They (the PPP/C) fancy their chances of getting back in power with the same constitution in 2020. Anil Nandalall finished his speech by asserting that ‘The need for constitutional compliance trumps the need for constitutional reforms’. Ludicrous! Where is the safeguard mechanism in the constitution to ensure compliance by the executive?

Rudolph Singh

We need constitutional education.

September 29,2017

Source

Dear Editor,

Having read Mike Persaud’s letter, ‘We need a return to a Westminster model constitution’ (SN, September 28), there are some germane issues that cannot be ignored.

1. Where the call for a return to a constitution that would “have a president with limited powers and subject to the rule of law” is concerned, ‘limited powers’ requires furthering contextualising given that Guyana is a sovereign nation and not subject to the Crown or any other external power. As it is the present Constitution subjects the president to the rule of law.

Presently circulating in the public domain are the oral and written rulings of acting Chief Justice Roxane George-Wiltshire on the interpretation of the qualifying criteria to be considered for the Gecom chairmanship (Article 161).  The court was asked to adjudicate on this matter given conflicting opinions by President Granger and others. Were the President above the rule of law, Madame Chief Justice would have thrown out the case and said whatever the office holder does is right and that person’s action is immune from legal interpretation and accountability.

The Gecom ruling also puts context to Article 182 ‘Immunities of the President’ where the society has been misled into thinking the office holder can do whatever he or she wants unrestrained by laws, time-honoured principles and ethical practices.  The Gecom evidence, in addition to previous similar rulings, by now should have nullified the argument that the president is above the rule of law, yet this misperception or piece of propaganda continues to hold sway.

     2.Mr Persaud said, “We need a constitution to strengthen the independence       of state institutions – the judiciary, Elections Commission, etc.” The debate on the composition of the commissioners can be argued, but the body of itself is independent and operates within the confine of the Constitution and any Act of Parliament (Article 162).

Regarding the judicature, Article 122A expressly addresses its independence. Accordingly, at “(1) All courts and all persons presiding over the courts shall exercise their function independently of the control and direction of any other person or authority; and shall be free and independent from political, executive and any other form of direction and control.” This is as clear as it can get, most notably so with the use of ‘shall’ as qualifier of the independence of this branch.

To the David Granger/Moses Nagamotoo government’s credit, the move to provide the judiciary with economic independence in the National Budget is a progressive stance in terms of Article 122A (2) that reinforces its autonomy and addresses its funding and management.

1. It’s Mr Persaud’s view there is need for a constitution to provide for “impeachment” of the president. This very request does not require a new constitution for it already exists in the present constitution. Article 94 ‘Removal of President for violation of Constitution or gross misconduct’ satisfies the desire to impeach the office holder if and when necessary.

We need constitutional education like yesterday, and at the risk of being seen as belabouring the point, this society is not being served where absence of knowledge, education and enforcement of the Constitution are driving the discussions for reform or a new constitution. The desire to pursue blindly will get us all into deeper trouble.

Yours faithfully,

Lincoln Lewis

There is need for a new constitution.

October 3,2017 Source

Dear Editor,

Mr Lincoln Lewis believes that critics of the Guyana Constitution have not read the document and implies that my objection to the Constitution stems from hatred of Forbes Burnham (SN, September 27). First, let me say categorically that I do not hate Burnham. I have said on numerous occasions that some of the core principles that motivated Burnham’s economic agenda are still relevant. These include state banking and industrial policies built on processing local content. As an aside, the early Cheddi Jagan of the 1950s and ʼ60s also understood the importance of industrial policies, for which the Kaldor Budget was meant to establish the initial conditions.  I also believe a National Service is needed and I felt robbed of the opportunity since it was abandoned by the time I went to UG. However, I would be hard-pressed to say Burnham’s net contribution was positive. History and the economy by 1985 document a net failure. The task of those living in Guyana is to study what went wrong with several of the progressive policies of Burnham.

I do not reject the present tinkered 1980 Burnham constitution on the basis of Article 160 alone, as Mr Lewis asserts. I was merely reiterating a point raised by Mr Campbell in his letter which points out a serious weakness of the list system that is enshrined in said article. I have read the Guyana Constitution and I must say the document has critical loopholes and it is written in a manner that gives anyone with the financial means to pay legal minds the upper hand against the working class. Here are some fun facts: the Guyana Constitution is spread across 376 standard pages (8.5 by 11 inches) and has 232 articles plus numerous sub-articles. To put things into perspective, the world’s superpower and largest economy – the United States – has a constitution with seven articles, which are written across 43 pages in a booklet of 8 by 4 inches page size.

Moreover, it is impossible to do a serious political-economic analysis of 232 articles in a single letter. I do intend to write an economic analysis of the Guyana Constitution. However, I can only to these things on a part-time basis, since it is not possible for me to live in Guyana at this point. Guyana has not been good to me. In the heat of the post-1992 ethnic conflicts, the Agricola boys firebombed my home (myself and family sleeping) days after the 2001 general election and I was on a Jagdeo-Rohee PPP surveillance list. I want to believe I am still under watch by the Granger-Ramjattan security regime since I was stopped at the airport the last time I exited Guyana in 2016, as well as July 2015.

The most important reason why I object to the present constitution is because it is not suitable for a country characterized by bi-communal ethnic polarization. In general, most Guyanese get along well at the individual level. However, at the group level most people vote strategically on the day of secret ballot. They mainly vote to keep the other ethnic group out from power because there are economic opportunities: jobs, land rights, mining rights, scholarships, etc, at stake. I have argued in ‘Development Watch’ and in academic works that economic capture starts with capturing the political party by selecting malleable members of parliament. This constitution provides an ideal incentive for bad governance and economic capture – the party list. Voters do not vote for a local representative who rises to the national level, but for a general list selected by the presidential candidate and a handful of powerful people in each of Guyana’s cult-like historical parties.

Addressing this pernicious situation would require a new Constitution, which promotes some form of power sharing, as was argued for over the years by several notable personalities such as James McAllister and Sherwood Lowe from the PNC and David Hinds, Ravi Dev, Henry Jeffrey, Baytoram Ramharack and others. I am sympathetic to power sharing, but I would enhance it with a new Constitution that provides for credible electoral challenges by independent voters to the ethnic incumbents sharing power. The incumbents of a power-sharing government will only be motivated to govern for the greater good if a creditable electoral challenge from the outside can be mounted.

The present constitution makes it extremely hard for independent political forces, while allowing for the entrenchment of the two old ethnic parties. The latter was emphasized clearly by Wil Campbell, Nadia Sagar and others from RISE. They showed the tacit (perhaps explicit) collusion between the PPP and PNC to prevent constituency voting for members of parliament and the president (SN, September 27). Furthermore, the constituency voting at the local government election – which is provided by the present constitution – is no substitute for the kind of constituency voting for which I have called and RISE has proposed.

In his above-mentioned letter, Mr Lewis notes “nothing prevents the parties from putting in place a system that would ensure a list reflecting the will of the people…” This was his response to my objection to the problematic list system. History has shown that the party’s interests become paramount to the national good. No president, except Desmond Hoyte, in Guyana’s history has been able to tame party interests for the greater good. Mr Hoyte, of course, would eventually vitiate much of his good name by his actions in opposition – some understandable – that laid the condition for the ethnic warfare from the days of street protests to 2006. There is no empirical evidence from Guyanese history that supports Mr Lewis’s optimism. But more importantly the present constitution incentivizes government for party interests over national ones.

When time permits, I would do an economic analysis of the Constitution. Some themes involve adverse incentives, fallacy of composition, political-economic capture, incomplete information, competitive voting and others. These are all themes which I believe the Constitution does not adequately address; hence, there is need for a new one.

Yours faithfully,

Tarron Khemraj