Dear Editor,
In any constitutional democracy, respect for the rule of law cannot be applied selectively. One cannot champion the respect for the Constitution when it serves one’s immediate objectives, only to disregard it when it presents inconvenience.
Constitutional adherence must be principled, consistent, and unwavering by all law-abiding citizens.
It is therefore troubling to witness the rapid and sudden shift from the staunch constitutional advocacy to constitutional contradiction by some persons in the public sphere. For several months, many Guyanese across the political divide, including supporters of the WIN party, pressed for the Speaker of the National Assembly to convene a meeting of Opposition Members of Parliament to facilitate the election of a Leader of the Opposition in accordance with the supreme law of the land, hence the constitution. When this request was eventually honoured, it was properly regarded as a triumph of constitutional order and respect for its supremacy. What was profoundly noticeable and very astonishing was the almost immediate metamorphosis of the once defender with misguided efforts that sought to circumvent clear and lucid constitutional provisions which could have been revealed by a cursory read of the said document.
The Constitution is very explicit regarding the status of members of the Guyana Elections Commission. Once appointed, GECOM commissioners do not serve at the pleasure of any political party, leader, or nominating body. This aforementioned paragraph should be reread for emphasis. The Commissioner’s tenure is protected, much like that of judges, precisely to safeguard the independence and credibility of the electoral process. This principle is neither new nor disputed; it is well established in both law and precedent.
History reinforces this understanding. On previous occasions, attempts to pressure GECOM commissioners to resign on the basis of political dissatisfaction were firmly rejected on constitutional grounds. Commissioners, while nominated through political processes, serve the Commission and the Republic, not partisan interests.
This approach is consistent with democratic practice internationally, where appointments to independent constitutional bodies do not automatically carry a corresponding power of removal. Such safeguards exist to insulate institutions from political volatility and to preserve public confidence.
In this context, confrontational efforts aimed at commissioners whom there is no constitutional authority to remove are unlikely to advance meaningful electoral reform. If the objective is to strengthen the electoral system through measures such as a credible voters’ list or the introduction of biometrics, then responsible, mature and respectful constructive engagement, not ill-informed constitutional overreach, would be the appropriate course.
The Constitution already provides a clear and lawful mechanism for change. When a vacancy arises, the nominating authority will exercise its right accordingly. Until then, constitutional continuity must be respected.
Ultimately, commitment to the Constitution must be more than rhetoric. It must be consistent, even when it constrains us. Anything less weakens not only institutions but also the democratic principles we claim to defend and stand for.
It is therefore incumbent upon all who enter the arena of politics to acquaint themselves with the rules and laws that govern it or, at the very least, to align themselves with those who possess the requisite constitutional understanding. Democracy demands no less.