IT is not part of my dignified propriety or behaviour to respond to articles written by others, but I do believe in this instance I am forced to respond to Aubrey Norton's letter in Stabroek News of February 21. In that article Norton, like his fellow comrade Henry Jeffrey, vainly tries to distance himself from the Burnham constitution while, at the same time, castigating the PPP for not doing enough to change that constitution. It is an argument they are prepared to hammer out to their own folly.
In the first place, let me educate Aubrey Norton that no party and I repeat, no party, has the right to change a constitution so that their status quo can be maintained. This is what his PNC did. They structured a constitution that suited their peculiar illegal existence, failing to take into consideration that they would one day become the opposition when the said constitution would come back to haunt them.
When they became the opposition in 1992, all hell broke loose as they went about a mad scramble to have the 1980 constitution revoked. That 1980 dogma was no problem prior to 1992 when they had the benefit of it, but right from the very start of their tenure as opposition it suddenly became intolerable; an argument that is so stupefying that even they themselves cannot make sense of.
The PPP for their own part did modify that constitution making it more people friendly,leaving certain elements which the PNCR finds offensive. Certain elements, such as the executive  powers remaining in the hands of the president, as well as the party with the highest tally of votes retaining power.
Other provisions speak of a prohibition of parties entering into a coalition after an election - they would have had to enter into such an arrangement prior to the election being called - laws the PNCR/APNU now balks at.
The opposition is ‘bellyaching’ that all of these things should have been changed through the Herdmanston Agreement. Now that they are in a seemingly commanding position in the opposition they would have liked the constitution to reflect this. The trouble is, whenever the opposition see themselves in the ascendancy, then the constitution should be crafted that way.
In a nutshell, the constitution should be like musical chairs, ever changing to suit the existence of, in this case, one party. Utter hogwash! As I said before, it is not the prerogative of any political entity to change the constitution at will.
 Whenever political parties tamper with national issues these nonsensical arguments would surface. Political parties are there to ensure good governance and the smooth running of society, not for their own personal good.

Aubrey Norton is a character known to me for over 20 years, first as a belligerent debater at UG and as a work colleague at the Ministry of Foreign Affairs. In both instances he exhibited the bullying Burnhamite tactics that he so often boasts of. A carbon copy of Burnham, that dictatorial trait runs in his veins. No wonder himself and Hoyte could not agree, a falling out that saw his expulsion from the party. Norton openly vented his anger by calling Hoyte ‘an ass’ for agreeing to free and fair elections. This is the same individual who could have travelled up to Linden and fuel the flames in the Linden uprising.
 He is a bully who supports violence to get what he wants. So, whenever he finds that power slipping away from him or when he is not in a position of "ownership and control", then he lashes out with these wild, outlandish statements. Well, for his information and record, no one owns Guyana.

In a related matter, what has become of the power-sharing discourse? A few years ago this was the hottest topic on the PNC's agenda. It seems as though they've suddenly grown cold in their pursuit of power sharing.
I have the answer for that, the PNC/APNU believes that someday, possibly in the next election, they would again rise to power and that means the "power- sharing law" would have to be enforced. They would never entertain the idea of sharing power with the PPP/C so the agreement is let's forego that argument for now.

The point I am making is that Norton and friends are up to their old tricks of changing the constitution so that it could reflect their hopes and dreams. That is not going to happen.