Dear Editor,
In another media, Emile Mervin related the court’s judgment in the peoples’ sovereignty case as “a Jagdeo jigsaw puzzle falling into place”. No, the term-limit judicial challenge has/had nothing to do specifically with (former President Bharrat Jagdeo) or about third term. The court was asked to rule on whether the people are sovereign and whether they should be the primary decision makers on major constitutional change. The court rightly ruled in favour of empowering the people – have a referendum on constitutional matters. What can be more democratic?
Mervin incorrectly related the court mater and his interpretation (third term) of it to Indians being “a minority in the population”. The court matter has nothing to do with Indians (being a majority or minority). In fact, because it was thought the People’s Progressive Party (PPP) would continuously win (free and fair) elections that it was felt (by party insiders, in particular) there needs to be term limit or else the same individual from the PPP would be President indefinitely.
Mervin did not address the issue of the legality of the Constitution. It is well established that the 1980 Burnham Constitution was a fraud perpetrated on the population. Does Mervin not think the people have a right on expressing their views on the Constitution? Should the people not be consulted on how they should be governed? And why are Mervin and his People’s National Congress/Alliance For Change (PNC/AFC) party opposed to a referendum to amend the Constitution? Put it to a vote and let us see the result! Grenada, St Vincent and other countries rejected amendments to their independence constitutions in referendums. Parties in Jamaica, Barbados, Dominica, and Belize are fearful of referendums on constitutional matters that seek to limit their rights or break from the United Kingdom (UK) – it is for this reason the four countries that accept the Caribbean Court of Justice (CCJ) have refused to hold a referendum on replacing the Privy Council with the CCJ. Instead of going through appeals, why can’t Mervin’s Government put the Constitution to a popular vote and let the people decide?
With regards to the court ruling, the court correctly stated the people are sovereign. Guyana does not have a constituency system in which Members of Parliament (MPs) are directly elected by the people in districts. The MPs are not accountable directly to the people. They are appointed by the party and carry out the orders of the party which act according to the self-interests of a few. Thus, MPs cannot speak for the people on constitutional matters. The Parliament, not being a true constituency democracy like the United Sates, UK or India, cannot speak for the people.
Mervin asked why the people did not challenge the term-limit amendment since 2001 when it was passed in Parliament. Had Mervin visited the people around the country, he would have found it that people did/do not like the Burnham Constitution or its amendments. They just did not have the courage to challenge it until last year because of political and economic victimisation.
It should also be noted that then President Jagdeo signed the two-term limit bill into law. He repeatedly stated he is not interested in a third term. But others feel he is the best choice for the country and should seek a third term. I do not know if Jagdeo will change his mind or be influenced to seek another term.
I support term-limit. But I believe it must be done by democratically in a referendum especially that the people were never given an opportunity to vote on the Burnham Constitution. Forget about appeals! Put the amended Burnham Constitution to a vote. Why are Mervin and his PNC and AFC afraid of a free and fair referendum? Better yet, why not ask the population to choose between the fraudulent Burnham Constitution and the Independence Constitution?
Yours truly,
Vishnu Bisram
