Bishop Desmond Tutu of South Africa is attributed as saying, “If you are neutral in situations of injustice, you have chosen the side of the oppressor. If an elephant has its foot on the tail of a mouse, and you say that you are neutral, the mouse will not appreciate your neutrality”. The moral of that statement seems apt given the current political situation Guyana is experiencing.
Within that context, one would have thought that the ruling and consequential orders of the Caribbean Court of Justice (CCJ) clearly decided the way forward on the burgeoning political impasse. After all, the final decision of the final Court is expected to do just that.
Thus far it hasn’t, and from all appearances, the APNU/AFC coalition Government is using its own interpretation to frustrate the implementation of the CCJ’s decision and orders. The Government’s unwillingness to abide by the rulings has not only created grave uncertainties in the country, but is swiftly pushing the nation into the realms of a dictatorship.
Its latest and bold support for the ongoing House-to-House Registration (HtH) by GECOM would ensure the elections not held within the constitutionally stipulated three-month period. The CCJ was clear on the holding of those elections having upheld the validity of the December 21, 2018, No-Confidence Motion (NCM).
Even with a protracted timeline of three months as claimed by GECOM, at the end of the HtH registration, there has to be a period for claims and objections. When that is taken into consideration and the fact that the HtH process began a month after the CCJ’s ruling, elections cannot be held before December this year. That seems conservative given GECOM’s current approach.
Important to note is that GECOM is following the instructions of its immediate past Chairman whose unilateral appointment by the President was ruled unconstitutional by the CCJ. It, therefore, stands to reason that his instructions could also be unconstitutional. Significantly, GECOM’s Lawyer advised it not to undertake the HtH registration as it would be illegal. Many in the civil society have echoed the same sentiment.
In a related response to the Private Sector Commission (PSC), the Chief Elections Officer is reported as saying the HtH registration will continue until directions from a duly constituted Commission. The obvious question is why proceed in the absence of a duly constituted Commission? Is that a hint of engaging in an illegality?
In that scenario, the President and his Government are seemingly supporting an illegal exercise while simultaneously flouting the CCJ’s ruling. One would have also expected that the President, as the Head of State, would have risen above the political fray and instruct his subjects to follow the rule of law as laid out by the CCJ. Instead, he appears to be the spokesperson advocating, through seemingly convenient excuses, in defiance of the CCJ.
That aside, very noticeable is the deafening and what seems to be a convenient silence of Caricom. That regional body was never shy of raising its voice during the aftermath of the 1997 elections. Then, it swiftly established an investigative Commission and an audit was carried out. In the end, it brokered the Herdmanston Accord which called for and resulted in the then PPP/C Government shortening its constitutional five-year term to three years.
As it is, the APNU/AFC Government is flagrantly extending its term despite the NCM and Caricom is still to speak on the situation while finding time earlier this year to issue a statement on the situation in Venezuela. Many questions have been asked about its silence on the Guyana situation and some worrying answers have been posited.
If those were to be true, then interpretation could render the institution as possibly biased. Even if it wants to appear as neutral, Bishop Tutu’s statement explains the related impact of taking such a position and brings into relevance Elie Wiesel’s, “Neutrality helps the oppressor, never the victim. Silence encourages the tormentor, never the tormented”.
By its continuous silence, even with the benefit of neutrality, Caricom may be encouraging the APNU/AFC Government, which continues to disregard the Constitution, thereby, trampling upon democracy. When that happens, a dictatorship is often and unavoidably precipitated.
In its statement on the situation in Venezuela, Caricom stated, “it has noted with concern the turn of events in the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela and the potential they hold for the escalation of the political crisis”. It also cited that the constitutional framework must be upheld. What then prevents it from saying even just that on the situation here?
The headquarters of Caricom is in Guyana, thereby, negating any excuse of not having a first-hand assessment of what’s unfolding. Its silence can also be taken as tacit support for what seems a growing dictatorship and could probably undo whatever democratic gains it claims to have facilitated following the 1997 elections.
Mahatma Gandhi said, “Silence becomes cowardice when occasion demands speaking out the whole truth and acting accordingly”. Caricom, by not speaking out, stands to be accused of not acting accordingly in the context of the preservation of democratic principles and for the adherence to the rule of law by APNU/AFC.
One may ask, is it in any way afraid of that proverbial Guyanese elephant with a history of inflicting torment? Time holds the answer.
