Dear Editor,
This letter is in reference to Mr Hemsworth Carter’s retort (Guyana Times February 16) of my argument for constitutional change (February 14). Carter feels political maturity will solve Guyana’s myriad of problems. But he does not say why the country lacks that maturity and how we will achieve it. Politicians are selfish creatures and will never willingly share power, regardless of their level of maturity unless it is so enunciated and clearly spelt out in a constitution.
Carter seems to suggest that Guyana does not need constitutional change or a referendum giving the people a voice on how they should be governed. He asserts that many countries don’t have referendums in constitutional acceptance and that the people play no role in how they are ruled. He seems to suggest the same for Guyana. I take an opposite view – the social contract position as pronounced by great philosophers that the people are sovereign and they must decide on how they should be governed. If people play no role in their governance, dictatorship is inevitable, as indeed happened in Guyana between 1966 and 1992 under the People’s National Congress.
Carter accepts the Burnham Constitution even though he knows it is illegal; it was not approved in a referendum. How can anyone accept an important document as a Constitution without the peoples’ input? Even if one is opposed to a referendum, as Carter is, and feels that only Parliamentary approval is needed (as indeed happened in many countries) for its adoption, surely the Parliament must be legally and properly constructed for such an important undertaking. In democratic countries, like the US, UK and India, for example, the Parliament (Congress) is duly elected in free and fair elections. Thus, the Parliament could speak for the people and suggest or undertake constitutional changes although the peoples’ voice is best heard through a referendum.
Unlike in democratic countries, Guyana’s Parliament between 1968 and 1992 was not properly constituted. Elections were rigged; the people were not allowed to cast ballots of their choice. Thus, Parliament could not speak for the people. Off course, Carter can now argue that the peoples’ vote is not needed in selecting a Parliament and that in many countries, people are governed without Parliamentary debate. Indeed, in most of Africa, Latin America, Asia and Eastern Europe, between 1950 and 1990, the people played no role in how they were governed or how their Parliament was chosen (appointed). Carter may favour such a system. I take no opposing liberal democratic position in which the peoples’ rights are absolute, and they must be given the ballot to choose their representatives and rulers.Carter chastises me for making reference to ethnicity in my argument for constitutional change that would address the ethnic competition for power. But that is the issue in Guyana – ethnic security that results in a contest for political power that is shaped by ethnicity. Where has Carter been living? Ethnicity defines almost everything in the society. Carter does not want to address that elephant sitting in the room and that has been crushing the society for the last 175 years, more particularly so in the last 70 years.
Guyana is a peculiar society in which race influences voting. We have to address that problem head-on – because one race controls the levers of government and the others are excluded. As has been our history, one race participates in development and the others are shunned the process. That system leads to failure and underdevelopment.
The ethnic issue has to be addressed head-on and must be done constitutionally in which all groups play a meaningful role in governance in accordance with their composition in the nation. If the ethnic issue is not addressed and a workable solution found, the country will not make much progress. Carter does not want to address that elephant sitting in the room and crushing the society. Carter seems opposed to a system in which power is shared among the varied ethnic groups. The ethnic issue has to be addressed head-on and must be done constitutionally, in which all groups play a meaningful role in governance in accordance with their composition in the nation.
Because of the ethnic division of population and their composition in the population, one cannot have an electoral system in which a ruler is elected through a minority vote as happened in 2011. There must be some kind of power-sharing. The leader of a party (or ethnic group) must compete for votes from the other groups and/or court members outside of his ethnicity in order to win office. A majority of votes required would force some kind of power-sharing arrangement. Off course, the ideal system is one in which powers are constitutionally elucidated to be shared by all the parties.
Carter calls for political maturity as a solution to the political conflict in Guyana. But maturity has been lacking since the formation of the first political party in 1950 – 67 years on and there is not maturity. And the reason we don’t is political selfishness and ethnicity. So politicians will not address the ethnic question or giving power to the people. Only a properly constructed Constitution can be relied upon to empower the people. And such a Constitution must be approved by the people, not imposed on the people by Burnham-like characters.
Yours truly,
Vishnu Bisram
