Latest update April 19th, 2024 12:59 AM
Sep 09, 2021 Features / Columnists, Peeping Tom
Kaieteur News – The President has set no preconditions for meeting with the Leader of the Opposition, Joseph Harmon (there is no such thing as an acting Leader of the Opposition). All the President wants is for the Leader of the Opposition to say whom he is meeting with, Citizen Ali or President Ali.
Under the Constitution of Guyana, the President is required to consult with the Leader of the Opposition when making constitutional appointments including that of the Chancellor of the Judiciary, the Chief Justice and the members of the Service Commissions. Where the President faces a problem is that he knows who the Leader of the Opposition is. However, that person, he believes, does not recognise him as President.
In other words, the President is saying that he knows who he is meeting with – the Leader of the Opposition. But who exactly is the Leader of the Opposition meeting with if and when they engage.
The controversy revolves around claims by the Opposition that the government is fraudulent. But having a government, which is deemed fraudulent, is completely different from non-recognition.
What is therefore needed is for a simple clarification as to whether the Leader of the Opposition recognises Irfaan Ali as the President of Guyana. Recognising Ali as President does not mean that he has to deem Ali’s election as valid.
In 1997, Desmond Hoyte refused at first to enter Parliament on the pretext that Janet Jagan was the victor in a contestable election. But he eventually crawled back into the National Assembly using semantics – a distinction between de facto government and de jure government. He said that the PPP/C was the de facto government.
The PPP under Cheddi Jagan was cheated in elections from 1968 right through to 1985. But while it deemed the government a product of electoral fraud, it did not derecognise the government.
Consultations were held between Cheddi and Burnham and also between Cheddi and Hoyte even though the government was deemed to be fraudulent by the PPP/C.
Similarly, after the 2015 elections, the PPP/C said that there were irregularities. Its election petition is yet to be heard. But this did not translate to non-recognition of President Granger. The PPP/C’s Opposition Leader, Bharrat Jagdeo, was engaged in consultations on constitutional appointments with the David Granger administration.
In Venezuela, the Opposition Leader proclaimed himself President and was accepted by more than 60 countries as a caretaker President even though he did not participate in the elections. A number of countries did not recognise the government of Nicholas Maduro on the grounds that the elections were not free because of the non-participation of a number of main opposition parties. Maduro won the elections convincingly, but his government was derecognised not because of electoral fraud but because the Opposition parties said the conditions for a free poll did not exist.
In international law, the concept of recognition applies to states. Thus some countries are recognised as legitimate representatives and others are not. The United States for example does not recognise the State of Palestine. Guyana does.
At the political level, there needs to be distinction between legitimacy and recognition. A government can be democratically illegitimate – like Burnham’s PNC was – and still be recognised.
The present impasse between the Opposition and the PPP/C government can be easily resolved by reference to the distinction between these two concepts. It is quite acceptable for the Opposition to believe (or delude itself into believing) that the Irfaan Ali’s government is democratically illegitimate because dead people voted. But that does not mean that Irfaan Ali is not recognised as the President of Guyana. He is and is so recognised by the international community. He holds Executive Authority – in fact full executive power.
Instead of engaging in semantics about ‘installed’ and ‘fraudulent’ government, the Opposition could simply seek refuge in the position that Ali has been legally sworn-in as President but that the elections, in their opinion, were marred by irregularities.
The Opposition and the government in Venezuela are meeting. They are setting the stage of negotiations to allow for the Opposition to participate in elections.
Meanwhile in Guyana, the game of semantic continues. What is needed is a trusted interlocutor to negotiate a simple resolution to the present impasse. Venezuela has had external forces seeking for years to bring about a compromise – it took time but some progress is being made now.
Surely, it is not outside of the possible for a solution to the impasse in Guyana to be broken. All it will take is for an acceptance that, notwithstanding how the APNU+AFC feels about the elections, we have a President in Guyana who was legally sworn-in following a Declaration made by the legal authority, the Chairperson of the Guyana Elections Commission.
The Leader of the Opposition does not have to accept the democratic legitimacy of Ali to simply say that he is meeting with Ali as President. By indicating that he is meeting with Ali as the President does not imply that he accepts that Ali was democratically elected.
(The views expressed in this article are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the opinions of this newspaper.)
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]