I vividly remember the dictator Robert Mugabe when he was cornered yet again on the manner in which he was brutalising the white farmers; he responded by saying “the land people …. the land.” Mugabe was repeating something that was settled years before in the reparation case in the return of land to its original owners.

That was a known fact, a done deal that the original owners must someday take ownership of their land, however, there was one problem with that statement, its timing. Whenever there is an election pending Robert Mugabe would harp on this known fact of land ownership. To be exact, 20 years have passed since its passage and the land was still in illegal hands. But such is the situation of this dictator who uses the land matter as a convenient whipping boy. To my knowledge, there has been no reparations made since the last election. Of course, these words would come up again as another election looms on the horizon.

Similar sentiments are echoed by the Opposition here in Guyana, whenever they find it convenient when the rallying cry is “the constitution … the constitution, it has to be amended.” Let me quote from an article written by Nigel Hughes “to go back to another election under the present system and expect accountability is lunacy dressed up in democracy.”  Why would Mr. Hughes make such a statement? Again, this is coming in the light of a mistaken perspective of an impending election. This immoral lawyer is commenting on the present arrangement in parliament wherein the combined opposition commands a combined, one-seat majority which is tantamount to them being “the elected government.” He wants the constitution to reflect this by way of an amendment. Should I remind the learned lawyer that the constitution does make provision for this by stating emphatically that such an arrangement must be done on entry into an election and not after the fact, once you’ve entered an election as a separate party, that’s how it should remain. What Hughes is actually saying is, the constitution needs to be changed to a big-tent styled one in which APNU and AFC should be considered one and the same entity. This arrangement I say should have been done before the last election, not after.

Like Robert Mugabe, Nigel Hughes and his cohorts, people who are bereft of any moral fibre in their being, should not ever have the gall to call for a constitutional change. The fact is, the provisions are already there. The trouble is, would they be able to garner the number of votes as separate entities the same way a Big Tent would is anybody’s guess.