Latest update April 19th, 2024 12:59 AM
Nov 15, 2014 Letters
DEAR EDITOR,
In response to Peeping Tom’s column, “There has been no breach of constitutional order,” (KN, November 13), s/he made an erroneous assumption that no knowledgeable member of the opposition or astute observer and analyst shares. President Ramotar did not act unconstitutionally; he acted undemocratically, since the people now have no parliamentary representation in our supposedly parliamentary democracy. There is a huge difference between what is constitutional and what is democratic.
It is possible that a constitution can contain a legal provision, but that does not mean the provision supports the concept of democracy, and especially a representative democracy. China, Cuba and North Korea, for example, all have constitutions which contain legal provisions that deny their people rights and freedoms. Those governments do exercise the constitutional provisions, which, unfortunately, do not support democracy.
Now, permit me to expand on what I believe is a bit of confusion over what the President has done by purportedly ‘proroguing’ (I prefer dissolving) Parliament. Guyana’s 1980 Constitution incorporated elements of the pre-Independence Constitution, which contained a provision allowing the Governor-General – who was appointed by and served at the pleasure of the Queen, constitutional head of all governments in British colonies – to prorogue or dissolve Parliament at will.
According to former Clerk of the National Assembly, Mr. Frank Narain, the 1963 government, perhaps realizing there was no Standing Order preventing the Speaker from convening the National Assembly on his own, turned to the Governor-General and asked that he ‘prorogue’ Parliament, and he complied.
Those two provisions – prorogation and dissolution – became known as Article 70.1 and Article 70.2 in the 1980 Constitution, and they were needed by Forbes Burnham – who rigged elections to retain power – as a safety net in event Parliament, by virtue of a two-thirds parliamentary vote, decided to remove him from office.
It was basically to ensure he held on to power, and this is what President Ramotar ill-advisedly chose to exploit in his bid to hold on to power, because a no-confidence vote would have triggered the immediate resignation of his government and paved the way for fresh General Elections in three months, which is what he and the PPP greatly fear.
As for the President’s talk about entertaining negotiations with the AFC and APNU during this period of prorogation, this is a waste of time and reveals his lack of understanding what a prorogation is about or he may be playing political games and buying time to establish a dictatorship.
My layman’s understanding is that in Britain, after whose constitution ours is largely patterned, when Parliament is prorogued, it is to facilitate preparation for scheduled fixed term general elections.
If Parliament is dissolved, it usually happens during the term of governance when either the ruling party loses enough members crossing the floor to the opposition’s side, thus rendering the government a minority, or if there is a coalition government and one or more parties in the coalition pulls out, rendering the coalition a minority government. The minority government may then feel it cannot work in that scenario and could pull off a majority victory at fresh elections.
Separately, while I am aware of the constitutional provision that says, after a no-confidence vote is passed in Parliament, the government must immediately resign and set a date for General Elections in three months, I have not read where anyone has cited a constitutional provision that says, after the President prorogues Parliament – except for scheduled General Elections – he has up to six months to call fresh General Elections. Where in the constitution is that provision written?
Editor, this preposterous notion that the President can ‘prorogue’ Parliament to avoid the records showing his government received a no-confidence vote, thereby rendering every MP (including PPP MPs) as ordinary citizens, and then offering the opposition members an opportunity to talk, should be rubbished.
Since the combined opposition now has no legal standing, and former MPs are now ordinary citizens, then any talks between them and government will not be legally binding and will not be recognized by a court of law. In fact, the government never even honoured anything the opposition did in Parliament, when it was in legal standing, so why would government be expected to honour any decision made, especially now that the opposition has no legal standing?
The majority of Guyanese know that the President shut down Parliament to avoid facing the embarrassing no-confidence vote and to avoid facing fresh General Elections, but the government can run, however, it cannot hide from the reality that General Elections are inevitable; unless it decides to go the dictatorial route.
So, let the President and his HPS blab about General Elections being held if the opposition does not want to talk with the government in this ‘prorogued’ period, because General Elections is the end game goal of the opposition’s no-confidence vote.
In closing, it is one thing for the majority of Guyanese to have no-confidence in the PPP, as expressed by their majority votes on November 28, 2011, or for the opposition to have no-confidence in the PPP, as expressed by their desire to pass the no-confidence vote, but it is another thing if the PPP has no confidence in itself about staging any elections
Emile Mervin
Please share this to every Guyanese including your house cats.
Apr 19, 2024
SportsMax – West Indies Women’s captain Hayley Matthews delivered a stellar all-round performance to lead her team to a commanding 113-run victory over Pakistan Women in the first One Day...Kaieteur News – For years, the disciples of Bharrat Jagdeo have woven a narrative of economic success during his tenure... more
By Sir Ronald Sanders Waterfalls Magazine – On April 10, the Permanent Council of the Organization of American States... more
Freedom of speech is our core value at Kaieteur News. If the letter/e-mail you sent was not published, and you believe that its contents were not libellous, let us know, please contact us by phone or email.
Feel free to send us your comments and/or criticisms.
Contact: 624-6456; 225-8452; 225-8458; 225-8463; 225-8465; 225-8473 or 225-8491.
Or by Email: [email protected] / [email protected]