THE draft LEAD Project which the US Embassy is promoting to ostensibly strengthen democracy in Guyana has not been published, so the public (including myself) has no clear and accurate information as to what it is. The only information which the public has is what has been gleaned from sketchy and inadequate newspaper reports.The draft seems, from the sketchy reports, to be largely devoted to educating voters and the personnel of the representative institutions, such as Local Government bodies, as to their roles. If the media have not been included in the project, this should be done to replace highly unprofessional journalism with professional journalism.

The LEAD project, as it appears from the sketchy reports, does not confront the core of the “Democracy Problem”. The core of the “Democracy Problem” in Guyana is located, not in the lack of knowledge of voters or in the personnel of the representative institutions, or in the structure of those institutions. The core of the “Democracy Problem” lies in the Parliament. Since the last national elections, Parliament has unfortunately become dysfunctional, and it is this fact which has upset the democratic norms of the society and created the “Democracy Problem”.
This dysfunctionality of Parliament is almost determinist in character. That is, it had to be so. And the reason for this is that for the last 50 years, Guyana has had executive-style government. All the main politicians of Guyana were born within the last 50 or 60 years, and as such they know government to be only executive-style government.
Executive-style government as being what government should be, is a concept deeply embedded in the psyche of Guyanese politicians. Democratic governance being a balance between the Executive, the Parliament and the Judiciary, is known to local politicians only as a Theory, and in no way changes their deep-set belief that functional government is always executive style. Both Government and Opposition politicians share the same belief, and are in the same paradigm.
Accordingly, after the last national elections, when Parliament unexpectedly re-emerged as a force, all the local politicians of all the political parties and of Government and Opposition were in a state of bewilderment and did not know what to do. The Opposition, who were now in control of Parliament, began trying to act as the Executive and not as the Legislature, while the Executive continued to act as Executive; and this inevitably led to conflict, creating the “Democracy Problem”.
The “Democracy Problem” in Guyana could be solved if Britain is asked to send, and quickly sends, one of its topmost Constitutional experts from either academia, Parliament or the Judiciary for a day or two to speak with and answer all questions from all politicians, especially those in Parliament. All sessions would be fully covered by the media so that the public could also be educated. The electronic record of these sessions could be exhibited again and again, and the written transcripts will have the status of precedents. Once the parliamentarians are authoritatively reminded of the Conventions, Procedures and even Laws covering the three arms of government, the Parliament would begin to work as a Parliament, and the “Democracy Problem” would gradually fade away. There would be no more gridlocks.
Such expertise should be British and not American, simply because the US Constitution is basically the 18th century English Constitution as described by Montesquieu, and being a written Constitution, its development has been different and sometimes halting.
The British Constitution, on the other hand, kept developing in the 19th and 20th centuries, and is the kind of Constitution which Guyana has. American Constitutional assumptions are therefore somewhat dated, as compared with the British, whose Constitutional assumptions are more relevant and analogous to Guyana’s.
I would therefore respectfully suggest that Government asks British help in this matter. This would not preclude a re-worked LEAD Project being used as a supportive measure, since the British project would have solved the fundamental problem.
I would also call on the Private Sector Commission and the Chamber of Commerce and Industry to consider lending their support for the British project as well.
P. Ramlall