“Striking compromises would have been a win-win result for both Government and Opposition and for the people of Guyana…”
Former Speaker of the National Assembly, Ralph Ramkarran believes that the government lost out on an opportunity for compromise last week when it held firm to its ground, resulting in Guyana failing to pass the Anti Money Laundering and Countering the Financing of Terrorism legislation (AML/CFT).
He believes that while it is not the most desirable option, the only way to break the current political impasse in the National Assembly is by returning to the electorate for a vote.
Ramkarran, in his weekly writings, which are posted on his media outlet conversationtree.org, has opined that the losers and victims of the failure to pass the legislation will be the people of Guyana.
He suggested that the proposed amendments by A Partnership for National Unity (APNU) required a special effort to be flexible.
“Striking compromises would have been a win-win result for both Government and Opposition and for the people of Guyana.”
He noted however that compromising in Guyana’s politics shows weakness and is regarded as a bad precedent.
“It is not yet appreciated that compromise can demonstrate statesmanship which the electorate will welcome.”
Ramkarran in his analysis, noted that the major issues of contention are the appointment of the Director of the Financial Intelligence Unit (FIU) and the establishment of the Procurement Commission.
He suggested that for the Director, a fair compromise would have been his/her appointment by the President, after consultation with the Leader of the Opposition.
Consultation today means ‘meaningful’ consultation.
Ramkarran said that the right of no objection for the Cabinet of awards of contracts by the Procurement Committee under the Procurement Act, demanded by the Government, is already justifiable.
He noted that “an awardee whose contract is objected to by the Cabinet has the right to challenge that decision in Court…In recent years, the reach of public law with its ancient but unique and powerful remedies have extended to all decisions by state authorities, and is likely to extend to a Cabinet objection, except where the Constitution protects such a decision from challenge…In this case it does not.”
According to Ramkarran, the Government might well have been advised to seek or to accept a compromise by which an approach to the court by an awardee is regulated in such a way as to preserve some protection or advantage for the Government.
“As it is, its insistence on the no objection, in the belief that it would bring an end to the award that is objected to, is misplaced.”
According to Ramkarran, by failing to explore options, many of which are available, the Government has lost an opportunity for a compromise solution which may well have been in its interests and acceptable to the Opposition.
“All parties stood to gain,” according to Ramkarran.
He reminded that the anti money laundering bill is of great importance to Guyana and comes after two years of skirmishes between the Government and the Opposition, with an intensification of bitterness, hostility and reducing trust after each disagreement.
“Guyanese are baffled by the intransigence which pervades our political process with no sign or hint of any intention to seek a way out of the political impasse which has emerged as a result of the 2011 elections.”
He noted that as a consequence of the failure to arrive at an agreement on the AML/CFT legislation, as one late and lamented, but much loved comrade in the PPP used to say: ‘The chickens have come home to roost.’
Ramkarran posited that the consequences of failing to compromise resulting in the legislation not being passed cannot be anything but dire.
“It is not possible to see how the Government can continue in this way without resorting to the electorate…Continued governance in a state of parliamentary impasse is not an option for the way forward.”
He opined that the skirmishing will continue and inevitably, another major issue will emerge which will defy compromise, and pointed to the fact that the budget is soon to be presented.
“The Government will obviously be thinking of the future and one, certainly unwelcome but perhaps inevitable option will be elections in the hope that it will recapture its majority.”
He noted that the Government would think it is too early for elections because it needs more time for some governmental achievements arising from a growing economy to present to the electorate.
It also needs more time to restore its organizational capacity to what it was in its fighting days.
According to Ramkarran, it is absolutely a bad time for the opposition to go to elections because it needs more time to raise funds, to organize and to develop a message.
“And if the AML/CFT legislation is the occasion for the elections, it will be on the back foot in the campaign, being accused of sabotaging the country…Already accusations of blackmail are being hurled.” According to Ramkarran “It would have been preferable if elections were not held in these circumstances but no one can see any way out of this gridlock.”
He said that the Government initially expected the National Assembly to bend to the will of the executive, propounding a theory that the executive is entitled to parliamentary support by virtue of it merely being the lawfully constituted executive.
“This was quickly shattered by the refusal of the Opposition to subscribe to such a ridiculous constitutional concoction.”
According to Ramkarran, serious efforts to compromise cannot be replaced by constitutional posturing or public acrimony.
Jun 18, 2019President’s College (PC) claimed two victories on Friday last at the Cliff Anderson Sports Hall (CASH) in the Youth Basketball Guyana (YBG) Georgetown and East Coast Regionals, including a massive...
Jun 18, 2019
Jun 18, 2019
Jun 18, 2019
Jun 18, 2019
Jun 18, 2019
By Sir Ronald Sanders Make no mistake about it, the election of St Vincent and the Grenadines – one of the world’s... more
Editor’s Note, If your sent letter was not published and you felt its contents were valid and devoid of libel or personal attacks, 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]