THERE HAS BEEN NO BREACH OF CONSTITUTIONAL ORDER

November 13, 2014, By KNews, Filed Under Features/Columnists, Peeping Tom, Source - Kaieteur News

The opposition parties are making out as if the decision of the President to prorogue parliament has unilaterally shut down parliament and silenced the voice of the people. This is not exactly true.

What the opposition parties are not saying is that if Government had not prorogued parliament, they the opposition parties would pass a no-confidence motion in the government. This would have resulted in the dissolving of parliament. Elections would have had to then be held by February.

As things stand now the President has given the parliament a chance to avoid being dissolved. The proclamation proroguing parliament has a shelf life of six months. If within this period no agreement can be reached as to the way forward in this 10th parliament, then one of the options and the most likely one would be for general elections.

However, elections are likely to be called earlier, since with parliament prorogued the government will be unable to have its Budget approved. As such elections are likely to be held much earlier than expected.

The difference between having parliament dissolved by the no-confidence motion and having it prorogued by the President is but a mere few months.

With the proroguing of parliament, there is but a mere pause. Parliament has not been disbanded. In the present circumstances, the President can recall Parliament. However, if the opposition had had their way last Monday, the parliament would have been dissolved and could have only been recalled through fresh elections.

The opposition is therefore being disingenuous and the people should not be deceived into believing that the President in proroguing parliament has ended its existence and therefore silenced its voice. It is the opposition who were planning to end the life of parliament with their no-confidence motion but they got outfoxed, and it is the shame and embarrassment that their plans were nixed that has gotten them so riled up. They are hot under the collars because they did not see prorogation coming. They should have.

I have noticed that the Organization of American States (OAS) is making some sounds and calling for parliament to be resumed early. Well, would the OAS have said the same thing if the no-confidence motion had been passed and parliament dissolved? So what is the OAS really saying? Are they saying that it is okay for the opposition to dissolve parliament but it is not okay for the President to do so?

Unlike what happened in Honduras in 2009, there has been no break with constitutional order in Guyana. Guyana’s constitution remains intact and operational, and since prorogation is allowable by the Constitution of Guyana, the OAS could not have taken any decision on suspending Guyana from its membership.

Constitutions of countries are not just mere laws. They are part of lineage of traditions and rights created through centuries of practice.

Prorogation has historically been a prerogative of the Crown. The right to summon, suspend, dissolve or prorogue parliament has historically been a prerogative of the Head of State.

But this is prerogative that should never be used casually.  It is never desirable for a situation to arise in which parliament has to be prorogued. It is always desirable that a government be scrutinized by a legislature.

But historically the right of the Crown to prorogue parliament has been preserved. Even in Guyana this has always existed. In the 1980 Constitution, one of the objectionable clauses was the one that gave the President the option to prorogue parliament if a situation arose in which he was likely to be removed by the National Assembly. That rule has since been modified but the prerogative of prorogation has remained.

The prerogative of prorogation has religious roots. This prerogative goes back to the issuance of Papal Bulls. The issuance of these Papal Bulls was far from democratic. It is therefore ironic that the Head of the local Roman Catholic Church in Guyana should be calling for a restoration of parliamentary democracy when the very act of prorogation has its origins in undemocratic Papal Bulls.

So powerful were these Bulls that it was one such Bull that divided the world into two parts, one half for Spain and the other for the Portugal. The rest is history, including our history.

One fear by the opposition parties is that after the life of this present proclamation ends, the government will attempt to rule by decree.

The opposition should not unduly worry about this. If this should ever happen, the response by the international community will be swift and strong. The OAS, Mercosur, UNASUR and a host of other international groupings are going to suspend Guyana from their membership and impose sanctions. The PPP cannot withstand such pressures.

Source - http://www.kaieteurnewsonline....onstitutional-order/