Dear Editor,
I am surprised that the main point of my letter on political maturity seems to have been lost, most recently by Mr. Bisram himself. My main intention in the previous letter was simply an academic perspective on various points raised. The bottom line remained that no system would fully work for Guyana unless the political leadership is mature enough to want it to work. As my letter was not taken issue for the academic points, let me clear up the main misconception that has emerged. I do not, in any way, support the Burnham constitution, nor do I dismiss constitutional reform with a mere ‘whatever’. Having studied and read many constitutional systems, my argument was specifically academic to the notion that all acceptable constitutions must be approved by the people, as there are numerous examples of this being the exception. But that is now beyond the point here.
As the response to my letter seems to be along the lines of my apparent support for the Burnham constitution and my apparent dismissive attitude to constitutional reform, let me offer the following clarification: I do agree that constitutional reform is needed, and while we made progress on this in the 1990s, we fell short of taking the bold steps towards ensuring a constitution which seriously provided for inclusive and effective governance. That phase of reform did a lot to decrease the excessive powers of the president, but it did not go far enough in terms of popular representation and the establishment of a distinct system of checks and balances in line with our modified Westminster system.
I am sure the memory of the super congresses of Local Democratic Organs, which merely rubber stamped the orders from Forbes himself, is still fresh. These useless institutions were done away during the last wave of reform, still we cannot be said to have a truly representative system.
Our constitutional structure, at least where the executive and legislative are concerned, can be effectively reformed on paper, and we need not look further than our past constitutional instruments to serve as a foundation while pulling some existing systems to build on it, such as:
1. An elected President who holds ceremonial responsibility, as was the case in our 1970 constitution. The improvement should be that like Singapore, the President should be elected by the people at separate elections, with candidates not running on parliamentary party platforms. This may be difficult in the early years, but in time we can have a Head of State who is responsible to the People acting as a check to the Government, which should be acting in the best interest of the people.
2. In order to not be dictated to by the whims of an autocratic Government, the President should be reposed with certain reserve powers, including acting as custodian of the financial reserves, to prevent the excessive and vulgar spending outside of the yearly budget, as we have been seeing with the salary increases for ministers and the Jubilee Stadium which is now literally a gold elephant (you can’t spend all that money and still call it a white elephant).
2. A return to a constituency system wherein each constituency elects a Member of Parliament and the President invites the leader commanding the support of the majority of members in the House to be Prime Minister. This way, all individual MPs, even the PM, is responsible to the ordinary man and woman who elected them. The example for this is there from our pre-1964 constitutional instruments. The people should have the power to petition for a recall of their MP if they are not being properly represented. The National Assembly would therefore be a truly representative body – at least more representative of, and responsible to, the people than it is now.
3. At the last round of constitutional reform, the idea of reintroducing the Senate was flirted. I do not think that we need a Senate for two reasons: (a) If the Senate is appointed using the formula in many of our sister CARICOM states, then it will literally be a rubber stamp for the governing party, and (b) if the Senate is elected, we would be paying two groups to do the same work.
4. Parliament should reserve the right to impeach the President, and to move a motion of no-confidence in the elected government, and the existing formula for this is sufficient. We cannot have an impartial Head-of-State, who must fear for his or her job when executing his/her responsibilities effectively, even if it clashes with the Government, nor should the people’s representatives be so insulated from the popular support that put them there should that support change.
Of course there are many more facets and proposals we can make at many levels, and we must make them. The important thing to remember is that we have the foundation to work from – at least where constitutional documents are concerned. Nevertheless, as I had maintained in my first letter, the ball would be in the court of our leaders to show political maturity. That is where I stand, and where I have always stood.
To answer the question where I have been all this time, I have been here studying, witnessing, understanding our political history, and my timeline didn’t begin in 1953, or 1964, or 1980, or 1992. I have been looking politically from whence we came since the 1600s, and where we can go in the future. That is where I have been.
Sincerely,
H. J. Carter
