Constitutions describe the allocation of State powers among the various branches of Government, as defined by the Constitution itself; prescribe the rules by which those powers would be conferred, and also includes procedures by which the Constitution may be altered. In a fundamental sense therefore, it is, or should be, the embodiment of the social contract crafted by the people of a country for their governance.
In a divided society such as Guyana, it is most important that the institutions created by the social contract are seen as just. As John Rawls declared, “Justice is the first virtue of social institutions as truth is of systems of thought.” For this reason, those elite bodies that are arrogating to themselves not only the right to initiate talks on ‘constitutional change”, but are insisting on presenting their proposals without taking them to the people, are placing the cart before the horse. President Ali has clearly stated that constitutional change will only come out of widespread consultations with the Guyanese nation.
It is ironic that the British, who have done so much to entrench the idea of modern constitutions as written rules that all citizens of a state have to be governed by – the rule of law – themselves do not have a written constitution. The anomaly, however, should remind us that rules, in and of themselves, may be necessary but are not sufficient to ensure the consent of the governed. The rules have to be embedded within, and be supported by a wider political culture that gives life to the rules.
This British idiosyncrasy of doling out written constitutions to its colonies while refusing to do the same for itself masked the reality of the need for the development of the wider network of informal traditions, accommodations, informal pro quid quos that make the British unwritten constitutional rules function. It is this aspect of constitutional rule that has always escaped the PNC from the onset of their entry into Guyanese politics in 1959. They were formed out of a mixture of overweening ambition of Burnham and the desire of the US to oust the PPP from power. It was not surprising that the former had to close their eyes to the excesses of the latter after they were given office.
Western constitutionalism arose out of the struggle for personal freedom and escape from arbitrary political will. Guyanese should certainly resonate to this struggle. Constitutionalism is a foundation stone of Liberalism, and defines a political scheme in which law, rather than men, is supreme. Political authority is exercised according to law, which is to be obeyed by all, including the governors, who cannot depart from it by whim. By definition, then, a constitutional government is a limited government, and as such, PNC innovations such as “party paramountcy” are anathema to constitutional rule.
The constitution, as observed above, can be regarded as a social contract agreed to by the government and which defines its legitimate political actions. This implies that all state power emanates from the people, and that sovereignty and all reserved powers remain with the people.
Constitutionalism, then, is infused with the ideology of Liberalism, which views men as naturally free and right-bearing individuals who need and establish governments that they can, may, and should control.
In Guyana, where we cannot pretend that our values were shaped by some commonality looming out of a hoary past, it should be self-evident that the several groups need to sit down together and craft a social contract. Our present constitution, while it has been extensively modified following the PNC-fostered riots after the 1997 elections, is still based on the 1980 Constitution foisted on the nation by Forbes Burnham and his PNC back in 1980.
As the PPP embarks on its second effort to rule democratically after rigging excesses by the PNC, maybe President Irfaan Ali can ask Granger, incumbent leader of the PNC, whether he is prepared to accept the supremacy of the constitution, crafted in the main by his own leader.
