The laws of the PNCR are not paramount to those of the Constitution of Guyana
With reference to a letter: “I challenge Mr. Harry Gill to deal with the central issues” (Kaieteur News Septem,ber 19), I gladly accept this challenge by the author whom I believe to be the real B. Benipershad Rayman, with a little help from a friend.
Everyone who reads the letter column in the independent dailies know that I’m no fan of President Jagdeo, for like President George W. Bush after 9-11 and President Obama, he has squandered the goodwill and confidence of the people, and lost an opportunity to do great things for the Guyanese people. He has also failed to restore this Nation to its leadership role in the region.
But having said so, I recall the People’s Progressive Party/Civic winning 54.6% of the 2006 Electoral votes in a free and fair election; and although the Guyana Constitution -the supreme law of the land, is very clear that the political party that wins 51% of the votes form the government, PNCR Party Leader – Mr. Robert Corbin has been calling for “constitutional changes” since 2002, that would change the mandate given to the PPP/C by the people of Guyana, and thus “violate” the law of the land, in “support of those who were not the choice of the people.”
In her letter, Rayman wrote, “Gill’s arguments fall in the realm of the absurd and would be just as ridiculous as If Hillary Clinton supporters campaigned for Barack Obama to step down after he was declared the democratic nominee because they believed that he was not the best choice, incapable of unifying the party or any other argument that suit their fantasy and disrespects the will of the people.
It is just as ridiculous as the Republican tea party supporters calling on Obama to step down because they believe he is not the best choice for the USA.” But isn’t this exactly what Corbin is asking the Jagdeo Administration to do?
I’m sorry, but Corbin and his loyal supporters cannot have it both ways. In an article: “PNCR wants shared governance before 2011 elections” (Kaieteur News, January 30, 2010), Corbin is quoted as saying, “The PNCR believes that in the interest of progress in Guyana a system of shared Governance should be discussed among all stakeholders and implemented before the 2011 National and Regional Elections……. Let me repeat for emphasis, there will be no discussion of changing the Constitution to give (President) Jagdeo or anyone else extended Presidential term limits.”
He also emphasised that his proposal for a system of shared governance should ensure constitutional changes “that would eliminate the dictatorial tendencies that have resulted from the Westminster Winner-take-all system and that have stultified development in Guyana.”
And in another article, “PNCR still against altering term limits – Corbin” (SN, July 10, 2010), Corbin said, “…shared governance has to do with constitutional changes”. Reading this, I couldn’t help but think just how hypercritical Corbin is; he wants Jagdeo and the Parliament to amend the Guyana Constitution to allow the “losers” in the 2006 elections (the PNCR and other opposition groups) to share the Government with the PPP/C Administration because he benefits directly, yet he’s defiant against any constitutional amendment that would give President Jagdeo a third term… not that I’m advocating this; just proving a point here.
So amending the supreme laws of Guyana to give Corbin more political and economic power is okay when it suits his purpose, but suggesting the same be done to the constitution or rules of the PNCR to “eliminate the dictatorial tendencies” that have “stultified development” within the PNCR, in order to be more appealing and electable in 2011, is “engaging in lawlessness”.
Let me remind everyone…the laws of the PNCR are not paramount to those of the Constitution of Guyana.
I am pleased that B. Beniprashad Rayman has found it necessary to toned down the rhetoric, and now consider me to be “one who has so many opinions to express on so many issues relevant to governance.” This is a radical change from being called: “A bully, a victim, a political neophyte and quack, a political bad man, a blundering analyst, and one that’s helping to contribute to the decay and rot in our beautiful country.