IT is a common observation in modern international politics, where leaders of states in some regions are known to seek third terms, and even extensions beyond, although their country’s respective constitutions have been specific about such stipulations that serve to restrict such executive time in office.

It is a given that such demands are extra-constitutional in nature, designed to shunt aside the rule of law, while having the effect of reducing adherence to its sanctified tenets. Such are also assaults on the summit of democratic norms and on the sacred wishes of the people since constitutions, the supreme law of every land, are compiled and concluded via inputs that reflect the wishes of the people.

From a study of such leaders, such illegal raids on the constitution are carried out by personalities whose tenure have mostly been dubious, controversial, and far from what can be described as desirable, patriotic, and nationalistic, as actions and policies for the benefit of their respective nations. These are leaders for whom the glitter, pomp and ceremony of office and the power inherent in such, matter for their personal aggrandisement, rather than what they could do for the betterment of their people. In other words, it is about self, and power, and its illegal grab.

The reaction to such leaders and their bid for perpetuation of office, hence power, will not detain us; except to say, that most would have met with very fierce resistance that caused social unrest, wherever they are.

Guyana has again demonstrated its maturity as a growing democracy as it has had to confront a similar pitch, for continuation of political power by a former president. There was never any doubt as to the unconstitutionality of such a bid, despite given the local courts’ approval; and which subsequent appeal by the government to the Caribbean Court of Justice(CCJ), the nation’s final judicial process for determination of matters, ruled against such a bid for perpetuation of power.

It is a case, and subsequent decision that will continue to be the focus of national discussion for a while, apart from being an eye-opener as to the kinds of leaders who will seek to challenge democratic norms for ends that can do their particular country and people no material good.

It was quite clear why such a challenge to the amendment to Article 90 had been made, and who had been its author, supported by those of both a legal advisory category, coupled with party supporters. As a collective, they aided and abetted a leader who had been wholly driven by personal ambition, whose prior rule had benefited them and a close circle. It was an experience of governance underpinned by race that had become the PPP/C’s masthead in their political-socio-economic policies in Guyana, a country of six races.

It is therefore incumbent on every political party, its utmost responsibility in ensuring that it keeps in check, any past leader, whose personal ambitions and lust for power has done his country no further good, given his past personal record of stewardship. But, again, that depends on that party’s socio-political outlook, as it pertains to the dynamics of governance, especially in a multi-racial country such as ours, and what it represents. Undoubtedly, that the party supported such a challenge to the amendment to the constitution, on the question of a third term for the nation’s heads/state/government, knowing that it was illegal is because it supports a platform of racism, and racial supremacy.

That it was prepared to go against its own unanimous support for such an amendment enacted in 2001 which is specific in its intent and spirit, on two terms only, speaks of the gross disrespect for the legality of such an amendment, and the nation’s constitution, in the process. In fact, it was an amendment that came about after widespread consultation with the Guyanese people. Thus, it was not foisted upon the nation in a dictatorial manner, by any single political party. It was done unanimously, with the blessings and support of the people. In this light, Richardson’s appeal, and by extension, the PPP/C’s can be seen as disregarding the wishes of the people.

The ruling of the CCJ must be seen as a victory for justice, and what is right for our country. It has defeated selfish ambition, and further anti-national intent. And as a reminder, all political parties must be committed to a multi-cultural state to be governed in a just manner, in which all will feel comfortable, be equal in participation of the national resources, and be part of the process of governance. The coalition government, the A Partnership for National Unity+Alliance For Change(APNU+AFC) has already set the example of this process of governance.