As we slowly embark on the process of instituting “constitutional reform”, we ought to reflect of a fundamental difference between the British structure of Government and ours – notwithstanding our claim to be following their “Parliamentary Tradition”. This difference lies in the locus of “sovereignty” – the ultimate authority over the state, which from medieval times was gradually extended outwards from the monarch or “sovereign”.
In Britain, sovereignty was left as residing in their Parliament, composed of the Monarch and the representatives of the people. Thus it was, for instance, that even though the British people voted in a referendum to exit the EU, their Parliament had to ratify – or deny – this move. The US, however, in its Constitution, declares sovereignty to reside ultimately in its people. Very critically, our Constitution was crafted to reflect this latter principle, rather than that of the British.
Possibly because they had fought a war to secure their independence from the British Monarch at a time when their parliament was still struggling to pry authority from him, Americans have cultivated a national narrative that stresses the “power of the people” at the collective and individual levels. As such, Americans are very alert to the overreach of those in public office. In Guyana, however, Independence was conferred to a PNC Government that was authoritarian to its core, which simply used the Constitution and other laws as fig leaves for its dictatorship. Guyanese have never been socialised to view themselves as the repository of sovereignty. As such, even though Guyanese trek to the polls to elect their leaders, as soon as these individuals enter office – at all levels of Government – some assume the outlook of the monarchs of yore: they have absolute power over their “subjects”. We remember Burnham riding around literally on his high horse. Those in Central Government can — for instance, like the PNC in 2015 — award themselves whatever salaries and benefits necessary to live pampered lives while telling ordinary persons there is nothing for them in the treasury.
At the municipal level, we have elected officials in Georgetown who refuse to follow the laws that govern their office, and who awarded a billion-dollar parking meter contract without public bidding and then refused to make the details of the contract available to the full City Council, much less the citizens of Georgetown. The PPP Govt has to find hundreds of millions to contest that contract.
Citizens requiring services from the central, regional or local bureaucracy must present themselves as supplicants for personal favours, rather than getting from “public servants” – as they are ironically described – services that are their right. The Police continue their arbitrary and peremptory stops, even though they have been publicly informed that this practice is illegal. And this is but the most minor quotidian of indignity those in whom “sovereignty” supposedly resides have to suffer.
But why has the US been able to foster a civic culture that privileges the rights of citizens over the powers of government? There is, first of all, the “national narrative” encapsulating this perspective that is purveyed and reinforced in schools, books, movies, TV, and other socialisation institutions. This narrative is based on the “social contract” between the governors and the governed, on which the Constitutional order rests: to wit, that citizens have the duty to contest, through legitimate means, any infringement of their rights.
The protest must be within legal parameters, such as was exemplified by MLK. In Guyana, we will have to emulate the various bodies, such as the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), that are willing to litigate official overreach in the courts at no cost to the violated citizen. In American today, we see all these avenues being utilized to articulate citizens’ disapproval of some actions taken by their administration. Because of our history of ethnicised political conflict, leaders will have to be circumspect in the avenues they choose to articulate their differences with the Government. After their mass genocide, Rwanda was able to return to stability because they altered their constitution to preclude ethnic incitement.
