THE Chief Justice ruled that the amendments to the 1980 Constitution are unconstitutional because they were not approved in a referendum. Since the three parties approve of the amendments, then they should put it before the voters for approval.Politicians and some of their supporters seem opposed to a referendum, fearing rejection.

There are those who argue that the 65 MPs are more powerful and more representative than the 500,000 voters. They also claim that the Parliament giving approval to amendments is more democratic than the electorate being given an opportunity to vote for the amendments. They are wrong on both counts.

The constitution was the creation of the late dictator Forbes Burnham, and was never approved by the nation in that fraudulent July 1978 referendum. Burnham always wanted to be an all-powerful Chief Executive, and so the constitution was constructed according to his dictates. Although Burnham died 30 years ago, and although there were amendments to the constitution, the original ideas and constructs remain “Burnhamite”.

It is noted that op ed writers and the media (including editorials in all the papers) commonly refer to it as “Burnham’s constitution”. Guyanese did not play any role in the drafting of the constitution. There was no consultation with the population, say, as in the drafting of the American Constitution. There was no constitutional convention, no representatives of the people meeting and holding discussion.

It was never approved in a free and fair referendum, as required by law, and as is the process in democratic countries. So it is Burnham’s creation, not the people’s.

The Chief Justice made it clear that the people must give their assent to the constitution to make it legitimate. What is wrong with that ruling to empower voters and strengthen democracy?

There are those who argue that the constitution should not be called Burnham’s because it has been embraced by the political parties, and that Burnham died 30 years ago. The parties don’t have a choice in the matter. It is the de facto constitution, and since it was never challenged (fraudulent referendum) in a court, it is also de jure.

If it is challenged in court, and the court reverses its legitimacy as it did regarding the 2001 amendments (14 years later), then we will have to return to the 1966 constitution. It is never too late to challenge the legitimacy of the Burnham constitution. But unlike other countries, Guyana lacks brave public interest lawyers who care for their nation and democracy.

Lawyers and the law association cower in fear of politicians.
With regards to still referring to it as the Burnham constitution, there are many airports, buildings and streets named after famous individuals. Should we change the names of these edifices and streets because their founders or those for whom they were named are no more? The constitution is for all practical purposes Burnham’s.

There is hardly any Guyanese who is opposed to changing the constitution because of the undemocratic manner in which it was foisted on the population, and for its creation of an all-powerful executive branch and a lack of balance of power with the other branches of Government and the people.

The political actors like the constitution because it empowers them. The parties and/or their agents harbour the hope of ruling the country under the Burnham constitution. They look forward for the opportunity to tower over the people.

The people are opposed to the constitution, and want it replaced. They want an opportunity to be a part of the process of constructing a constitution that empowers them, not the politicians.

Those who argue that two-thirds (45 members) of the assembly, acting as agents for the voting population, constitute supremacy over 51% of the people who elected them to make decisions are wrong. Few politicians behave like true democrats, consulting with the people on any policy decision. They all have toed the party line for fear of losing Parliamentary perks; and, in fact, one of the amendments to the constitution specifically prohibits voting against a party’s (whip) position.

So they cannot exercise a vote of conscience and/or do what the people demand. They hardly ever act in the interest of the people.

My understanding of political mathematics, and of real maths as well, is that two-thirds, or 45 MPs, can never be more powerful than a majority of the electorate, or 200,000+ voters.

As the original Greek democratic theorists, natural rights theorists, and modern-day democratic advocates would argue, direct democracy — where convenient and possible — is always superior to indirect democracy. In political theory, the people are supreme over the assembly. In a small nation like Guyana, it is not inconvenient or difficult for a voting population of 500,000 to discuss and debate a constitution and vote nay or yea.

If politicians are true practitioners of democracy, let the people decide on how they are to be governed, since they were never asked for their approval of the constitution concocted by Burnham.

Under our current crop of politicians and parties, I won’t hold my breath for this eventuality. It will never happen, because our politicians are afraid that the people will do the right thing and reduce their powers.

Am I the only democrat in Guyana and the diaspora who is interested in empowering the Guyanese nation and reducing the powers of politicians? Is there not one decent lawyer willing to stake his reputation and challenge the legitimacy of the Burnham constitution?

There being none, it is time that a serious effort be made by politicians to construct a new constitution, or place the Burnham constitution before the population for a vote. If it loses in a referendum, then the nation should return to the independence constitution.
VISHNU BISRAM