Dear Editor:
Wikipedia notes that Mr Hamilton Green “was a member of People's National Congress and chosen as one of the five Vice Presidents in the cabinet of Forbes Burnham in October 1980. He also served as the Prime Minister of Guyana from 6 August 1985 to 9 October 1992”.
In his letter captioned “I advised President Hoyte to abort the 1992 vote as the lists were clearly flawed but he refused to, I did not want to cause mayhem” (Stabroek News, March 27, 2019), Mr Green states “Mr. Sharma clearly is the victim of propaganda generated in the early 90s. First, he is quite inaccurate when he accuses me of leading street protests that led Jimmy Carter to fear for his life. I don’t know whether Mr. Carter expressed such fears to him or is he making an assumption – but that’s another matter.”
Mr Green's letter was in response to a letter from P.D. Sharma.
I hold no brief for Mr Sharma. I believe he is quite capable of defending his position. However, one way or another, post-CCJ appeals of the No-Confidence Vote, it is likely that Guyana will be holding general elections within the next twelve to eighteen months. Many of the voters will be individuals who were born after 1992 or too young in 1992 to know what transpired and hence need to get an independent view of some salient facts.
In 2007, President Carter wrote a book titled “Beyond the White House: Waging Peace, Fighting Disease, Building Hope”. An excerpt relating to Guyana's 1992 elections can be found at https://www.cartercenter.org/news/.../p/.../remembering-guyanna-1992-elections.html
Following are extracts:
“The most personal danger I have felt since leaving the White House was in Guyana in 1992. This small nation on the northern coast of South America was then and still is the most completely divided that I know...The Indo-Guyanese hold a slight majority, but the Afro-Guyanese and their People's National Congress (PNC) party were able to control the government from the time of national independence in 1966, assisted by the government of Great Britain and the CIA, both of which considered Cheddi Jagan, leader of the opposition People's Progressive Party (PPP), to be a Marxist.
In 1990, Mr. Jagan came to The Carter Center, claimed that previous elections had been fraudulent, and asked us to help ensure that the next one would be honest and fair. We agreed, provided the ruling party would also accept our presence as observers. For several months, President Desmond Hoyte objected strongly, but public opinion became so greatly aroused that he finally agreed, just one month before the election was scheduled.”
On the day of the elections, after returning to the airport from the riverain area along the Venezuelan border “our small plane was surrounded by members of the security forces, who informed me that riots had broken out all over Georgetown, and that I must go to the U.S. Embassy, where I would be safe. Instead, I went to my hotel room and called President Hoyte, who assured me that the police were in charge and order would soon be restored. Bob Pastor (Carter's staff) informed me that the PNC were obviously losing the election, and that some of their supporters had been induced to disrupt the process. I decided that the election should continue if possible and sent word to our observers to monitor events and, after the polls closed, to go to their assigned places to gather quick count results. Our senior observer, Jennifer McCoy, told me that the election center had come under attack by an angry mob, some of whom claimed to have been denied a ballot. She had visited the building and tried to work out a solution with the PNC party chief, but the riot continued.
… When I arrived (at the election headquarters), accompanied by three Secret Service agents, the building was surrounded by several hundred rioters, who had already broken all the windows with clubs and stones. There was only one Guyanese police officer present, a woman wearing a uniform but without sidearms.
We went upstairs and found that all the computers had been transferred to one of the more isolated hotels for safekeeping. I phoned the hotel manager, who told me that the computers could not be operated there unless 'a battalion of troops is sent to protect us against the mobs trying to stop the vote count.' I called the president again. I told him that I was in the unprotected building and that there was no way to complete the election unless the workers could return with their computers. Also, I told him that our Secret Service would contact the White House if I didn't receive immediate protection from the mob outside.
Calm was restored after another hour, and the computers were tabulating returns by midnight. Our quick count showed that the ruling party would lose by about 14 percent, and early the next morning I went to visit both presidential candidates. They agreed to refrain from any public statements and to accept the final results, which were announced three days later. Cheddi Jagan was sworn in as president after what was considered to be the country's first free and fair election since independence...”
A further report worth noting is that of the International Foundation for Electoral Systems (IFES) which “played a significant role in the development of the Guyanese electoral process and the preparations for the October 5, 1992 national elections in Guyana” This report can be found at https://www.ifes.org/publications/final-report-guyana-election-assistance-project-october-1990-november-1992
This report concludes “Election Day did not pass without a significant challenge to the electoral process. A violent crowd gathered outside the Elections Commission building and attacked it with stones and bottles, causing a temporary evacuation of international consultants and non-essential local staff. There were also reports of violence and looting in other locations around Georgetown and the country. Despite these attacks, the process moved forward to a highly successful and internationally credible conclusion. Both the Carter Center and the Commonwealth Secretariat international observer teams were able to certify the elections as 'free and fair' due to the dedication and hard work of all those involved in the process.”
Harry Hergash, Mississauga, ON |
Dear Editor:
SN’s editorial of March 25th, captioned `The Court of Appeal ruling and its aftermath’ is bang on with not only the CA’s mathematical mockery or logical idiocy, but most critically, this government’s unwavering acceptance of 33 votes as sufficient to succeed on a no-confidence motion back in 2014. Sherwood Lowe is out to lunch and overreaching with his Mar 26/19 attempted rebuttal titled `SN’s editorial was poorly informed and reasoned’. SN got it right. This government’s past conduct in opposition when it brought a 2014 no-confidence motion is arguably the real dagger in the heart of the government’s absurd 34-vote argument. This country had 8 years of 33-32 vote majorities in the national assembly and no one raised this absurd 34-majority contention. This 34-majority argument arose primarily after the loss, not before, when the No Confidence Vote (NCV) motion was filed. This is a new fiction born out of desperation, power hungriness, disrespect for common-sense and the willingness to subvert democracy at all costs.
Sherwood Lowe needs to brush up on his legislative reading as well as his high school math and logic. While it ruled on a no-confidence vote article in the constitution, the Court of Appeal’s (CA’s) decision did not limit its interpretation to only no-confidence votes. Its decision related generally to the interpretation of the meaning of the word ‘majority’ and that decision now applies to all of Guyanese society. Virtually every major decision-making body in this country uses the same ‘majority’ requirement. So, the CA’s interpretation of the word ‘majority’ affects and binds all of these decision-making bodies, particularly the deeply politicized ones like Gecom. The CA has opened a can of worms. The Interpretation and General Clauses Act states this “Where any written law confers functions upon a body or a number of persons consisting of or not being less than three, such functions may, unless the context otherwise requires, be performed in the name of that body or number of persons by a majority of those persons.” The Court of Appeal Act at article 37 states this: “(a) an uneven number of judges shall sit, which, for the purpose of any final determination by the Court of an appeal or a case stated or reserved question of law, shall not be less than three; and (b) any determination by the Court of Appeal on any matter (whether final or otherwise) shall, where more than one judge sits, be according to the opinion of a majority of the judges who sit for the purpose of determining that matter.” These are just two examples that shine a light on Lowe’s failed intellectual gymnastics.
The court cannot make law. It has to interpret law. This has thrown the Interpretation and General Clauses Act into disarray. Every decision made in every contested panel is now challengeable. This is good for lawyers but bad news for a badly clogged judiciary. Even worse, in a terribly divided polity where for the past 8 years power on both sides have been held by slim majorities with the trend likely to continue due to demographic realities and new parties, this will lead to a collapse of the legislative arm of the state on these contested bills where an eternity of legislative and court challenges on simple votes on bills will likely ensue. This decision could effectively kill or badly maim the law-making function of the state. That opens the door for the overly powerful executive arm to run the country by executive order, bypassing the legislature and the judiciary. Remember the judiciary is not a superior arm of state power as per Article 50 and the executive controls 2.5 of the 3 supreme arms of state power! This decision potentially deepens the dangerous imbalance that already exists favouring the executive/presidency and in turn, leads us to inevitable dictatorship. This country is one of the most inefficient, sloth-like and disorganized nations. There is rampant lawlessness already. This decision threatens to fuel even more. The gridlock alone that will flow from this is going to stunt the economic progress of this country, jeopardizing the oil investments. This could bring the country to a standstill if it stands.
What about all those laws made based on 33 votes in the past 8 years – are they now null and void? Is a new government entitled to disregard them on the basis of the CA’s decision, further causing bedlam? Considering this country’s history of despotism, its broken and imbalanced constitutional structure, its barely-fragile democratic foundation, its warring factions, its divided polity, its history of electoral misfeasance, its failed political structures, its undemocratic parties, the grave risk to its territorial integrity at this time of its descent into destructive bickering and the serious risks oil brings to this country geopolitically with major superpowers not backing down against each other in its direct theatre, I daresay the no-confidence vote is the most critical democratic bulwark left in this sorry failed state for democratic accountability, renewal and turnover. We make it harder for a no-confidence motion to succeed, we make authoritarianism and geopolitically-driven conflagration easier and bipartisanship harder. Right now, Russia and the US are escalating tensions in Venezuela. Democracy is our best option right now.
Authoritarianism delegitimizes and weakens the state at a time when its geopolitical and territorial risks are greatest, not to mention chilling investments. With a constitution that easily facilitates executive abuse, Guyana needs a 33-vote majority for its every survival. It is the only tool left for the legislature to strike back against an executive that dominates the legislative arm, especially with the veto. Finally, if Charrandass Persaud voted as he was expected to, for the government, then the government still does not get the Court of Appeal’s mathematical majority of 34 votes to succeed against the no-confidence vote. The opposition would have ended up with 32 votes, not 31 and the government 33 votes, not 34. The CCJ’s decision may have to solve our ready inclination to despotism more than our problems with mathematical foolishness and logical confusion.
M. Maxwell via email
|