The same dictatorial constitution is ideally suited for the PPP’s dictatorial nature

Dear Editor, Yet another Peeping Tom article, “The will of the people does not annul prorogation,” (KN, November 15), has caught my attention. But before advancing, permit me to state that after my previous letter to KN, “The President acted constitutionally, but not democratically,” (November 15), I learned that Article 69 does allow for prorogation of Parliament to last up to six months. In light of this discovered source, the Opposition – now regular citizens – being courted by the President to engage in talks with the government, should forego demanding Parliament resumes sitting. They should demand, instead, that the President sets a date for fresh General and Regional Elections. After all, any resumption in parliamentary sittings will result in the no-confidence vote being passed, the government resigning and fresh G&RE being called. Getting back to the subject at hand, Peeping Tom appeared as trying to be balanced, by saying that while the President acted constitutionally, he did not act democratically; and that while prorogation can be undemocratic, so too can a no-confidence motion against a democratically elected government. On the latter, it is either s/he does not understand the circumstances under which a no-confidence vote gets passed or s/he deliberately ignores the fact that a no-confidence vote can only happen in a democracy, thus rendering his or her contention here as baseless. But it quickly became obvious s/he is sympathetic to the PPP. The writer went from seeking to debunk the views of folks who claimed the President misused Article 70.1 to prorogue Parliament, to venturing that while the President acted constitutionally, but not democratically, there were actually five instances when the President could have done so long before November 10. The truth is the President did not even need those five instances; he could have acted at any time, so why didn’t the writer advance reasons for the clause to be either removed from the constitution or amended to cater for national emergency situations and with limitations in scope? In his or her defence of the President’s use of Article 70.1, the writer further noted, “By convention, the exercise of a prerogative of the Crown carries broad discretion,” and that “the Crown can opt to prorogue parliament as many Kings and Queens have done in the past.” Why invoke the Crown decades after Guyana ceased being subjected to a Crown system in 1966, and is now a supposed parliamentary or representative democracy? Article 70.1, which found its genesis in the era of the Crown, should have either been done away with or, at least, been made more explicit in its objectives and limitations. As it is currently written, interpreted and applied, Guyana is not a true parliamentary democracy if the President can, for no stated reason, prorogate (dismiss) or even dissolve (suspend) Parliament. It also renders hypocritical the notion that Parliament is the highest decision-making forum in the land, because, whereas the constitution says Parliament can get rid of the President by a two-thirds majority vote, it also says the President can prorogate or dismiss Parliament! Dr. Mohammed Shahabudeen helped screw us and now we really need a new constitution! In my previous letter (KN 15), I did venture that the reason why the late Forbes Burnham came to have the prorogation and dissolution Articles brought forward from the pre-Independence era (when the Crown was supreme) into the 1980 Constitution, was to pre-empt Parliament from using two-thirds of its vote to remove him, thereby proroguing Parliament and protecting his hold on power (for up to six months). This actually was one of the reasons that the late Cheddie Jagan kept harping for years that the 1980 Constitution was dictatorial, except that after the PPP won in 1992, the same dictatorial constitution turned out to be ideally suited for the true dictatorial nature of the PPP, which explains why the 1999 reforms were mere minor amendments, and why even Mr. Haslyn Parris, a 1999 reform commissioner, reportedly now believes it is time for a new constitution. Sardonically, in a case of using your own stick to beat you, Article 70.1, which was one of the articles retained during the so-called constitutional reforms of 1999 and unanimously approved by the National Assembly – including PPP and PNC MPs – is now being used by the PPP against APNU/PNC! Not funny! Editor, I have no illusions about the vital role of a constitution in the governance of any country, even if the document is discovered to have flaws; what I do not support is this notion that the PPP once condemned the constitution because it was misused to deny that party (what it deemed was) its democratic right to rule or govern; yet when the same PPP gets to rule or govern, it exploits the same condemned document and denies others their right to parliamentary representation. Worse still, is that there are PPP apologists who use the media to defend the indefensible, as happened during the PNC era and is happening now. This public defending only helps to strengthen dictatorial behaviours by parties and governments, and this exactly the interpretation of Peeping Tom’s opinion that the will of the people does not annul prorogation. All of a sudden, the Crown (which we once associated with colonial-era discrimination and inequality and wanted gone) is now being invoked to show the broad powers the President now wields; that the President is now within his right to ‘prorogue’ Parliament, and that the will of the people no longer matters. Peeping Tom may or may not know it, but those are the ingredients essential for a dictatorship, while we badly need opinions supportive of democracy. Emile Mervin