THE Government of Guyana, more so President Donald Ramotar’s decision to prorogue Parliament in the face of a pending no-confidence motion by the combined Opposition, intended to dissolve Parliament and start elections anew, has generated much discussion from certain sections of the populace, both locally and internationally.Many critics, including non-partisan, civic and non-governmental organisations such as the Blue CAPS, the Catholic Bishop and others, have expressed disappointment with the decision by the President to prorogue Parliament, citing that the act borders on “dictatorship” and will perpetuate unaccountability so long as it exists.
I, for one, am perplexed at how these bodies could surmise the above-mentioned conclusion and how is it that these non-partisan and civic bodies, which are supposed to disavow themselves from political predispositions, are so closely involved and against the proclamation made by the President, but didn’t find it at all necessary to address the issue of the no confidence motion advanced by the Opposition.
If one were to look at the situation objectively, one would find that both the provisions for the no-confidence motion and the prorogation of Parliament are enshrined in the Constitution of Guyana. Article 103(6) of the Constitution makes provisions for the no confidence motion, while Articles 61, 69 and 70 makes provisions for the President to prorogue Parliament. If one does not have a problem with the issuance of a no confidence motion, which is a right that the combined Opposition has, why then should there be a problem with prorogation, which is a right that the Government of the day has in defence of a no confidence motion.
In fact, prorogation was used by advanced countries such as Canada, Australia and Sri Lanka in recent years, when their Governments were faced with no confidence motions. I am certain that critics wouldn’t label these countries “dictatorships” for utilising their constitutional right. So why then are they making such a fuss when the Guyana Government is doing the same: Maybe it has to do with ignorance on their part.
These civic and non-partisan organisations, whose fundamental pillars are structured around the proliferation of human rights and social welfare of citizens, ought to know that the Opposition’s no-confidence motion was issued after it was found that the Government went ahead and spent monies that were cut from the 2014 Budget, so that it could provide much-needed financing to fund projects intended to address the welfare of the working people, the Amerindians, and our children. For example, the Hinterland Capital budget, the Amerindian Development Fund, the University of Guyana student loan programme and the ten thousand dollars cash voucher programme, just to name a few. Incidentally, the Government did the same thing in 2012 and 2013, and came back for supplementary financing in the Parliament and it was approved.
Now if the President did not prorogue Parliament, then the combined Opposition would’ve passed the no-confidence motion, thereby dissolving the 10th Parliament and terminating all the important business that were to be addressed, such as the immensely important telecommunications Bill seeking to liberalise the telecommunications sector, as well as the ongoing compromise to get the AML/CFT Bill passed, establishing the Public Procurement Commission, in addition to a whole host of other important matters which would essentially have been dead until new elections are held and Government is either changed or reconstituted.
By proroguing Parliament, the President has simply put off the session of the 10th Parliament, so that a compromise can be met between the combined Opposition and the Government to address these issues. The President has also signalled his intention to call general elections if there is no consensus within the six months life of the prorogation, thereby fulfilling the objective of the no-confidence motion.
With respect to unaccountability, my understanding is that all monies spent during the period of prorogation will have to be accounted for when Parliament resumes.
Why these organisations, bodies and individuals would not want to support such an initiative; or would want to condemn it, is beyond me. It is one thing when persons who have a right to be subjective are critical, but it is an entirely different scenario when non-partisan organisations such as the Blue CAPS and others who are supposed to be objective take a political line.
It begs the question, what is their agenda? What is their motto? Is it about the welfare and goodwill of the people? When the 2014 Budget was cut, denying poor persons billions of dollars, no one heard from these civic organisations; one would have thought that they would have supported the move by the President to delay the passage of the no-confidence motion so that a compromise could be garnered; thereby allowing all the socio-economic investments and political agreements intended to benefit all Guyanese to flourish and not die.
They have to decide whether they are political tools or champions of the welfare of persons.

Reaz Holladar