Dear Editor,
Walter Bagehot, the nineteenth century English journalist, claimed that the British parliament was no more than a talk-shop of idle people dominated by the executive, and this has remained so in Guyana, where, since independence and even after the so-called ‘return to democracy’ in 1992, the system has been underpinned by majoritarian ethnic voting. It is precisely this contextual ignorance, which prioritises form rather than substance that also explains why a quarter century after a major effort at constitutional reforms, there are still persistent calls for more inclusive political arrangements.
In 2020, the PPP returned to government wanting blood after being battered by the APNU+AFC Coalition (AAC) government that took what it considered a politically motivated decision to reform the sugar industry in a manner that threw thousands of sugar workers – PPP core supporters – on the breadline at Christmastime while they stood helpless on the sidelines. On that occasion, this column criticised the position taken by the Coalition government (‘Sad but not at all surprising,’ SN: 13/12/2017).
Even if as some would have us believe, the successful no-confidence motion that brought down the Coalition government was a PPP initiative motivated by what was happening to the sugar workers, having to take such deceitful action that if universalised will undermine the entire political process to have a meaningful impact on what was happening to one’s constituency, could not possibly have been the intent of democratic constitutional makers and is in itself an indication that the political system is broken and the opposition impotent.
Back in government in 2020, the PPP wasted no time trying to make up for the years it had been out of power by blatantly utilising the State to entrench itself. It cloaked its unilateralism in the argument that since the new LOO, Mr. Aubrey Norton, claimed that the 2020 elections were rigged – a perennial complaint of both the PPP and PNC – it would have little to do with the official opposition until he apologised. In protest at this shabby and unconstitutional treatment, Norton did what little was open to him: he refused to shake hands with the president. The regime and its propagandists went about making this trivia a far bigger issue than they made of the fact that the elected representative of half the country was being denied his democratic right to properly represent his constituency.
Now the LOO is again being sidelined, and the hullaballoo is even more deafening, although the situation is substantially different and even less justifiable. The PPP is dragging its feet on the appointment of an erstwhile friend and the US-indicted Mr. Azruddin Mohamed as the LOO although his party, We Invest in Nationhood (WIN), has supplanted the PNC as the largest opposition party in the National Assembly. Some argue that the PPP is refusing to appoint Mr. Mohamed because his party poses a significant political threat to it, but this was not demonstrated at the most recent elections. Furthermore, the issue of the appointment is not only in the hands of the PPP, but that aside, there are important reasons why the PPP or any government of Guyana should be cautious about the appointment of Azruddin Mohamed.
For example, under Article 119 of the Constitution there should be parliamentary sectoral committees to deal with natural resources, economic services, foreign relations, social services and oversight of the security sector. The membership and leadership of these committees are distributed relatively equitably between the government and the opposition. Among other things, the committees have responsibility for the scrutiny of all areas of government policy and administration. They can request ministers to submit written or oral information, including government documents and records, about any specific area of government policy and administration, scrutinise government documents, papers and records, visit any government activity or project in Guyana, use the services of experts, specialists and other sources of advice, and make recommendations to the Assembly on legislation or any other action to be taken on matters falling within their purview. The security sector oversight committee has responsibility for examining the policies and administration of sector entities, namely the disciplined forces, etc.
Democratic outcomes normally result from a totality of individual private interests which often reflect conflicting selfish wants that could lead to widespread injustice, inequality, etc. If Mr. Mohamed were to be appointed, we would have as a member and possibly deputy chairperson of the sector committees someone who is running foul of the very law enforcement institutions he has been elected to investigate and make good. Since his indictment, Mr. Mohamed has been doing all he possibly can to use the political/electoral and legal systems to avoid falling prey to US justice and would be foolhardy not to expect that he would most likely use any relevant information, etc. he came upon to positively leverage his position. In fact, it would be morally proper and more sensible if none of those under Mr. Azruddin Mohamed’s leadership had any relationship with the abovementioned parliamentary activities/information until this entire matter has been resolved. It is in this context that I view the prevailing notion that his appointment be made ‘as soon as possible.’
The Guyana Elections Commission (GECOM) is again busying itself planning for local government elections instead of deciding upon the fundamental reforms the system requires if it is to deliver free and fair democratic elections. A jocular aspect of 2025 elections observers’ reports is that even those who attempted the spin their report to mitigate the fallout likely to occur if they followed the European Union’s position, identified so many problems with the elections process as to make their own conclusions untenable.
The recent Commonwealth Monitoring Group noted that ‘these were the eighth elections observed by the Commonwealth since 1992, and these elections occurred against the backdrop of several unimplemented recommendations. ….. Our Group makes recommendations for improving future elections in Guyana. …. It is our sincere hope that, with appropriate Commonwealth support, in collaboration with international partners, we can encourage a positive response to observer recommendations, and that an appropriate domestic mechanism would be established to advance this aspiration.’
I began by arguing that the existing political system is largely inappropriate for Guyana’s political context. Incumbents can and do totally ignore the opposition. By the next local government elections, the priority of the parliamentary opposition must, in collaboration with civil society, be to develop a comprehensive strategy to force meaningful constitutional reforms that will make governments inclusive and accountable.