Latest update May 13th, 2024 12:59 AM
Jul 22, 2018 Eye on Guyana with Lincoln Lewis, Features / Columnists
The engagement between President David Granger and Leader of the Opposition Bharrat Jagdeo on Thursday, 19th July signals an encouraging sign. Arising from this engagement, there seems to be an acceptance, by both sides, of the necessity to go ahead and appoint members to the Public Service Commission and Police Service Commission, which are constitutional bodies.
Emerging from the meeting, the Opposition Leader informed the media that the engagement came about because of the intervention of former United States (U.S.) president Jimmy Carter, who spoke to the President and himself as to the necessity of meeting and having dialogue. The Opposition Leader further stated that the President indicated his interest to speak about three issues, viz, crime; environment; oil and gas, a position he would have to engage the party’s leadership for their position, and whether the PPP/C will identity other issues, but he was clear in saying that he has not taken a position there will be no engagement.
The revelations and admissions surrounding the July 19th meeting speak to a sad state of governance in our society, where the political leadership requires foreign intervention to engage in basic civility and uphold the Guyana Constitution. At the expense of being accused of belabouring the point, this issue reinforces that our problem is not the Constitution; it is the want of the will of the leaders and citizens to enforce and respect it, which in this instance came at the behest of Carter.
The issues floated by the President can be considered matters of national character that impact the day-to-day wellbeing of the citizenry, yet when concerns are being expressed from varying quarters about making shrewd, informed and collective decisions on these, our political leaders have ignored the people. The President and Opposition Leader are elected and paid by the citizens, hold constitutional offices, and are expected in the execution of their duties to take into consideration the hopes, aspirations and desires of the people to live in peace, harmony, and benefit from the patrimony of this nation.
Holders of these offices ought to be reminded that they have constitutional roles to discharge on behalf of the citizenry, and this they must. The question, only they can answer is, “Why it had to take Carter to cause them to come to the table when their own constituencies have been calling for same?” Are we to believe that as a people our voices, our influences, are not important to these politicians? Ours is a representative democracy where our leaders must be representing our interests and the 19th July meeting gives the clear impression that while we elect them to do so, their agenda is not being determined by us.
Come 1st August, the nation shall be observing Emancipation, marking a significant achievement in our centuries of struggle for freedom and self-determination. Yet today it is not unfair to say, in too many instances, some still depend or rely on being nudged into action, not due to the determination of those who they represent, but that of external forces.
It was Bob Marley who delivered the admonition of emancipating ourselves from mental slavery because none but ourselves can free our minds. Heed needs to be taken.
Carter’s initial involvement in this country, more than a quarter century ago, was influenced by the U.S Congress’ opinion that our political conflict had to do with strong perception of electoral unfairness, and as such, it required his involvement with the stakeholders to bring about a system acceptable to all. His present intervention had to do with day-to-day governance and the discharging of constitutional responsibilities vested in the Presidency and Opposition Leadership.
The distinguishing feature in the two interventions is that the first dealt with the establishment of a new electoral policy, while the present is nudging the leadership in respecting and upholding what is written and required of them.
Chapter X, ‘The Executive’ in the Constitution, at Articles 99 and 110, highlight the existence of the President and Leader of the Opposition. By virtue of their collective presence in this branch of government, it means both office holders have shared responsibility in the day-to-day management of this nation’s business and its citizens’ welfare.
The fact the President has placed three issues (oil and gas, environment, and crime) on the agenda, gives the Opposition the opportunity to place issue(s) of national character on the agenda, since they all impact on the citizens’ wellbeing. This brings attention to the point of addressing talks about constitutional reform in the absence of putting laws and structures in place to realise constitutional enforcement.
As such, both leaders are called upon to place Article 13 on the agenda for engagement, with the intention of putting laws and structures in place to bring about the environment the people seek after. Article 13, “The principal objective of the political system” mandates inclusionary democracy, where groups and individuals are involved in the management and decision-making processes of the State on matters that impact their wellbeing.
It took Carter’s involvement to cause this country’s two premier political leaders to uphold and respect their constitutional responsibility. More importantly, what does this say about this nation whose people, for centuries, have fought for the right to self-determination and marked major achievements in 1838, 1966 and 1970, that there still exists the reliance on others to determine for us what we have written for ourselves? The truth is, by actions within recent years, the nation has been taking one step forward and three backwards in the advancement of solidifying our freedoms.
Jimmy Carter has brought the leaders to the table. We the people must find ways to make sure they remain there. Of immediate concern is the importance of engagement being facilitated on internationally acceptable principles. It is every leader’s responsibility to determine the composition of his/her negotiating team. A negotiating team is not akin to selecting a jury panel where the other side can object to who participates. You don’t have to like my team to respect the principle of the right to identify how it is composed and who participates. It is the issue that must determine the relationship, not the person. Civil and human decency is built on respecting the rights of others, and should the nation start out from this premise, it stands to eliminate the destructive, personality-driven politics that determine engagement, benefits, and entitlements.
Since leaving the presidency, Carter has created for himself the image of an international humanitarian and activist. And while Guyana and Guyanese must acknowledge and respect his work/contributions, it’s a shame to rely on him to tell us what is within our Constitution and what is expected of us. In the coming days, society must resolve to hold the President and Leader of the Opposition’s feet to the fire to make sure meaning is being given to our desire for peace, harmony and structured development.
Listen how to run an oil country
May 13, 2024
GCB T10 Blast Semi-finals… Kaieteur Sports – The semi-finals of the GCB T10 Blast will get underway today, barring inclement weather as the final four teams look to book spots in the...Kaieteur News – The PPP is engaging in myth-making in seeking to perpetuate the narrative that it is now an ideologically... more
By Sir Ronald Sanders Is it ever justifiable for journalism to fan the flames of geopolitical tension? This question arises... 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]