As has been the case since 1980 when the People’s National Congress (PNC) introduced a new Constitution for Guyana – comprehensively overturning most of the premises on which the Independence Constitution of 1966 was based – there are again calls for “constitutional change”. While ostensibly, the 1980 Constitution was supposed to describe the new institutional bases of the state for realising the ideology of “co-operative socialism”, from the onset there was great alarm in most sections of Guyanese society, on the tremendous array of powers concentrated in the form of the “Executive President”. Some asserted it made the incumbent tantamount to a “constitutional dictator”.
In 2000, however, following massive street protests and riots in Georgetown, sponsored by the PNC, constitutional change was effected through a Committee taking recommendations from a wide cross-section of individuals and groups at several locations in the country. The reduction of the powers and immunities of the President were among a raft of reforms in the Constitution that were unanimously passed by the National Assembly. In the succeeding years, however, the complaints about excessive powers of the President continued to be vented in addition to complaints about the allocation of state power in several other areas of national life.
The PNC and its successor “A Partnership for National Unity” (APNU), as well as the “Alliance For Change” (AFC), placed constitutional change very high on their agenda. In their manifesto for the last election, they stated: “APNU+AFC recognises that the Constitution, in its current form, does not serve the best interest of Guyana or its people. Within three months of taking up office, APNU+AFC will appoint a Commission to amend the Constitution with the full participation of the people. The new Constitution will put the necessary checks and balances in place to consolidate our ethos of liberal democracy. Freedom of speech, reduction of the power of the President and the Bill of Rights will be enshrined in the document.”
A Steering Committee on Constitutional Reform, under the chairmanship of Nigel Hughes, then Chairman of the AFC, a party in the governing coalition, was constituted after the elections. It took recommendations from the people, and submitted in April its final report to the Prime Minister, in charge of “governance”. The Steering Committee requested and received an extension of its time frame so as to secure the widest consultations possible. Prominent recommendations included reduction of the powers of the President, further devolution of power from the centre and revamping the electoral system. Upon receipt of the Report, the PM promised that a broad-based Constitutional Committee, which should include “the PPP and other stakeholders”, would consider the submitted recommendations, in the reforms they would initiate.
Last weekend, however, President David Granger appeared to throw the entire process into a tailspin when he averred that he did not want a “boardroom constitutional reform”. This appears to be a direct refutation of the process whereby the Steering Committee produced its recommendations. This was made very clear when the President concluded: “I want people in their communities to meet and express their views. I don’t want a group of people sitting down in a room saying what must be done.”
The President is in effect bypassing the procedures established by his own party in the governing coalition for instituting constitutional change. His Prime Minister, Moses Nagamootoo, and his party (especially Nigel Hughes) before and after the elections have been very vocal on the need for reducing the powers of the President. By now going over their heads and asking for the opinions of the “people”, the President may be seen as using a populist undermining of representative government.
If there are serious concerns about the people’s involvement in constitutional change, the constitution insists on the mandate of a Referendum from all the peoples when altering certain articles. This can be invoked in the changes that the Constitutional Commission will recommend.
