‘Non-cooperation’ could affect oil and gas sector – Ramkarran

In wake of new political tension

Given the new political tension created by President David Granger’s unilateral appointment of a chairman of the Guyana Elections Commission (GECOM), former Speaker of the National Assembly, prominent Attorney-at-Law Ralph Ramkarran, has predicted that non-cooperation from the Opposition could serve as an impediment to the effective management of the oil and gas sector.
In addressing the issue through his weekly column The Conversation Tree, Ramkarran noted that the People’s Progressive Party’s (PPP’s) non-cooperation could be selective, and this could also affect the manner in which constitutional reform is addressed — something he claims to have deep concern about. He said these are two very important issues that the nation cannot afford to be affected.
In relation to oil, he pointed out that the Petroleum Commission Bill has been published and is likely to be debated in the National Assembly in the near future. This Bill is of tremendous importance, and can be much improved in debate and discussion. A bill to create and manage a sovereign wealth fund is under preparation. This also will require extensive examination, discussion and debate.
“Since oil will become Guyana’s largest income earner for the foreseeable future, and will shape the future of Guyana and all Guyanese, it is vitally necessary that the Opposition is fully engaged in fashioning oil legislation, which is intended to protect the people of Guyana. The PPP should not extend ‘non-cooperation’ to these Bills,” Ramkarran wrote in his column.
With ‘non-cooperation’ by the Opposition, the former Speaker feels that constitutional reform in terms of the APNU+AFC (A Partnership for National Unity/Alliance For Change) manifesto has become doubtful. The manifesto spoke about separate presidential elections, second highest voted candidate becoming the prime minister and political parties being qualified for representation in Government.
Ramkarran explained that while the Opposition is awaiting an invitation from President David Granger, the governmental process appears to be stalled. And with President Granger’s latest statement to the National Assembly on Thursday last, the prospect now looks remote.
“Winner-does-not-take-all-politics” was a policy first accepted by the PPP as a reaction to the People’s National Congress’s (PNC’s) unlawful acquisition and retention of political power from 1968 onwards. The objective was for the two main political parties to share political power,” he recalled.
This move was aimed at bringing an end to ethnic domination through political power. The PNC’s ‘shared governance’ proposals, which came later, had the same objective. These two policies are reflected in the APNU+AFC manifesto promises on constitutional reform, he added.
However, the attorney said that for President Granger to now baptise the APNU+AFC coalition as an expression of “winner-does-not-take-all-politics,” thereby distorting the meaning of “winner-does-not-take-all,” is as wrong as the PPP’s distortion of the PPP-Civic in the same way.
“Winner-does-not-take-all” presupposes a coalition between the main political parties. If it doesn’t bring this about, it is not “winner-does-not-take-all.” It is merely a coalition of convenience, whether PPP-Civic or APNU+AFC,” he further added, as he referred to the President’s recent statement.
Ramkarran said now that political parties believe that they will win the 2020 elections, the oil bonanza for their elites and ethnic domination rather than constitutional reform would now appear to be far more attractive propositions to each. “There is the danger, unless public pressure continues to be brought on APNU+AFC to uphold its manifesto promise, that the issue of national (political) unity will be postponed to the third generation of Guyanese after 1950,” he opined.
Ramkarran believes that political tensions in Guyana took a turn for the worse over the past two weeks. This has to do mainly with the appointment of former Justice James Patterson as Chairman of GECOM. Rejecting the names of 18 persons that were submitted through three lists and utilising the constitutional proviso to appoint a judge or former judge or a person qualified to be a judge to the post also led to that.
The Opposition’s reaction of non-cooperation to the President’s unilateral appointment, according to him, is not surprising. However, the attorney said it is not known exactly how far the policy of ‘non-cooperation’ will extend. From the Opposition’s general reaction, it could well be that considerations of non-cooperation will apply selectively; but, hopefully, it will not affect the work that needs to be done. (Samuel Sukhnandan)