THE attempts of the combined Opposition to strangle and collapse the work of the Ethnic Relations Commission (ERC), a constitutional body, has always been suspect.
The ERC was one of five constitutional rights commissions, one of the products of the profound and extensive constitutional process of the 1999-2003 period.
The first members of the ERC were appointed in 2003 in compliance with the new constitutional provisions. This body with office and staff had been fully functioning and serving the Guyanese people from 2003 in accordance with its constitutional mandate, which included, inter alia, through Article 212 D (c and w) of the Constitution of Guyana:

c. ‘Discourage and prohibit persons, institutions, political parties and associates from indulging in, advocating or promoting discriminatory practices on the ground of ethnicity;’

w. ‘Make recommendations on penalties, including the prevention of any political party or any persons from participating in elections for a specified period, to be imposed for any breach of provisions of this Constitution or of any law dealing with ethnicity;’

The ERC had produced annual reports and special reports to the National Assembly, again in accordance with the constitution.
With a seemingly unprovoked and malicious act, the A Partnership for National Unity (APNU) and the Alliance For Change (AFC) voted together with a “one-vote majority” to cut the entire amount allocated in the 2012 Budget for the ERC to one dollar.
This action must be exposed for what it really is: a vicious act to prevent a constitutional commission from functioning as mandated to promote unity, harmony and good relations among the Guyanese people and to prevent ethnic division and ethnic discrimination.
This action in 2012 should be seen within the context of the previous attempts by the then People’s National Congress/Reform (PNC/R) to subvert the establishment of the ERC by not supporting a motion that had enjoyed the full support of the Committee of Appointments of which members of the PNC/R were a part and participated in drafting.
The Government members then tabled a motion which led to Resolution No. 36 under the Ninth Parliament.

That resolution stated the following:
* That the National Assembly takes note of this serious development
* That the house so informs the President of the Republic
* That this National Assembly calls on the President to take such steps so as to enable the Ethnic Relations Commission to continue to carry out its constitutional responsibilities in the interim.

The Committee of Appointments chaired by the PPP/C was unable, between 2007 and the end of the Ninth Parliament, to reach consensus with the PNCR on the list of entities to invite to submit their nominees for appointment to the ERC.

This transpired after several meetings at the level of The Committee of Appointments, three tabled reports, one special report and four motions to the National Assembly.
The second attempt was made when Mr. Robert Corbin, the then Leader of the Opposition and leader of the PNC/R, moved to the courts to stop the work of the ERC by way of an ex-parte injunction, which was dated and entered on June 1, 2011, mere months before the November 28, 2011 General and Regional Elections. This matter was heard and discharged on November 22, 2011.
This third intervention is the most sinister of all. With the removal of the ERC’s budgetary allocation, the only reasonable conclusion that one can make is that the APNU and the AFC have conspired to undermine the constitution by their combined majority of one in order to remove one of the key complaints mechanisms available on issues of ethnic insecurity.
The Leader of the Opposition, Mr. David Granger’s subsequent statement on a pro-Opposition website on May 10, 2012, in response to popular disbelief on their parliamentary action, declared that they want the ERC restructured. This seemed a subterfuge and veiled and desperate attempt to justify this reckless and unconstitutional act.
It is important to note that at no time at any of the eight meetings (talks hosted by President Donald Ramotar, nor in the written submissions of the APNU nor in the discussions) was any issue or question raised with regard to the functioning of the ERC. In fact, it was never mentioned.
The AFC attended three of these eight meetings and they did not raise any matter surrounding the ERC.
Not even when Mr. Carl Greenidge tabled the APNU motion to amend the budgetary allocations of the Minister of Finance was this matter raised. It was only on the floor during the debate of the Estimates in the Committee of Supply on April 26th that the government and the public knew that the ERC was identified by them to be reduced to $1.
One can remember, under the stewardship of Bishop Juan Edghill, the immense efforts the ERC had made to bridge divides within communities through social and cultural interactive activities that brought together Guyanese – irrespective of race, religion, ethnicity, cultural norms, to share and bond together as they enjoyed community activities in which families participated together on common community grounds.
The results were spectacular and Guyanese were re-living the spirit of yesteryear, when communities bonded and lived together in peace and harmony, looking out for each other and each other’s children.
The Opposition has learnt well the lessons taught by colonial masters: divide and conquer a people through controlling their minds with conspiracy theories, lies and misrepresentation of facts; and yes, instilling a dependency syndrome – a society shackled in mental slavery. This is seriously difficult to achieve with an active Ethnic Relations Commission (ERC).
When one looks at the political strategies of the joint Opposition, then one receives the answer to the question as to why did the joint Opposition (AFC & APNU) cut the ERC budget?