THE UNFULFILLED PROMISE OF THE 10TH PARLIAMENT

November 29, 2014, By KNews, Filed Under Features / Columnists, Peeping Tom, Source - Kaieteur News

All manner of arguments are being made about the constitutionality of prorogation. Yet it seems to have escaped attention of those arguing such a line, that prorogation is itself a creature of the Constitution.

The source of prorogation is the Constitution. The Constitution, in turn, places no conditions on the exercise of the power of prorogation. And so some folks have decided to theorize about the inherent constraints to the exercise of prorogation.

They have made an intellectual mess of it. Their starting point is that sovereignty resides with the people.  From this they proceed to argue that it is the Constitution that vests sovereignty in the people and that the people have determined in elections in 2011 that the opposition should have a majority in parliament.

Therefore, they continue that to prorogue parliament is unconstitutional. How does one move from saying that the opposition enjoys a majority to saying that the decision to prorogue is unconstitutional?

It is not even a circuitous argument. It is disjointed. To fill that void, the argument is introduced that what the opposition wants is what the people wants because the opposition with their majority is the embodiment of the will of the people. This is the sort of illogical tripe that is being pedaled.

The will of the people is not reflected by the election of opposition parliamentarians alone or even by virtue of the fact that the opposition parties hold a majority in the National Assembly. The opposition is not the only embodiment of the will of the people. To say this is to say that only fifty one per cent of the people reflect the embodiment of the people.

This is an untenable position. The opposition is not the only reflection of the will of the people.  The government is also an embodiment of the will of the people.  The will of the people is reflected in the overall composition of the parliament and therefore the government is also a reflection of the will of the people.

How is this will determined? The will of the people is determined by rules set by the Constitution. In the case of Guyana those rules allow for the party that wins the most votes, that is a plurality of the total votes cast, to assume the Executive and the Presidency. The will of the people is not just about parliament; it is also about how the government is formed.

The fact that the opposition parties have a majority in parliament is just one aspect of the will of the people. There is also the will of the people in respect to who holds the Presidency. But it seems that the critics of prorogation do not wish to accept the fact that the President is also a reflection of the will of the people.

He is, because the Constitution provides that when someone votes for a party he or she also votes for the Presidential candidate of that party. And the rules of game, as determined by the supreme instrument of sovereignty, the Constitution, dictate that the person who wins the most votes is elected as President.

The critics of prorogation however wish to contend that it is only the opposition parties with their one seat majority who are a reflection of the will of the people and not the President who won the most votes of all the Presidential candidates.

The power of prorogation is not a democratic power. It is a reserve power assigned to the President and which he can use at his discretion. Such is the nature of reserve powers.

The President has used his reserve power of prorogation. He could have alternatively used his reserve powers to dissolve parliament. The opposition wanted to dissolve parliament. This is why they went ahead with the no-confidence motion. Now, if they had done this, they would have argued that they had a right to do so since the Constitution allows them to recall the government through a no-confidence motion.

But when the President prorogues parliament as is also allowed by the Constitution it is argued that the President is acting unconstitutionally.

The bottom line is that the opposition has been embarrassed. The opposition members wanted to humble the President by forcing his government to resign. They did not even have the decency to state reasons in their motion for the vote of no-confidence.  What they wanted to foist on the 10th parliament was a degutted motion, one without any basis. They wanted a debate to spring from a degutted motion, one that stated no basis for the removal of the government. Yet they are crying foul when the President pulled the rug from under them and decided that he would, as is his right to do, prorogue parliament.

The people have for three years witnessed nothing but non-stop tribulations in the National Assembly. The tenth parliament was one that should have been characterized by political cooperation. Instead the people saw how difficult it is for a minority government to work. Minority governments have not worked.

The people are not likely to want another three years or more of that experiment.

The opposition may have some justification in believing that the people are fed up with the PPP. But I can tell you they are more fed up with an intransigent opposition which has failed to fulfill the promise of the tenth parliament.

Source - http://www.kaieteurnewsonline....the-10th-parliament/