Dear Editor,
IN much the same way same as the government is not only responsible and accountable to its supporters, so too is the opposition not only accountable and responsible to its supporters. Both the government and opposition have a broader responsibility to the country as a whole. The government must govern in the collective interest of all Guyanese, and the opposition must ensure that it does so.

The no-confidence motion has produced much disquiet, the bulk of which was generated by the PPP, its supporters and its sympathisers. The government’s hesitation to call elections within three months of the presumed passage of the no-confidence motion has manifested in seemingly incessant shouts of constitutional crisis. Senior legal and political commentators joined in this chorus. Even the Bar Association, quite curiously, I must say, joined in the call for adherence to the Constitution and respect for the judiciary.

The Honourable Chief Justice (CJ)’s decision validating the passage of the motion naturally gave cause for celebration to the PPP, its supporters and its sympathisers. The CJ was hailed as a brave woman; a beacon of judicial independence and a hero. There were widespread invitations to abide by her decision, and hold the Constitution as paramount.

And this, even though all stakeholders were reminded that the CJ’s decision was only the first tier of the judicial ladder. The Court of Appeal (CA)was expected, and the Caribbean Court of Justice (CCJ) anticipated. The chief advocate for adherence to the Constitution and respect for the CJ’S decision was the Leader of the Opposition himself. He also led the choir in the singing of the constitutional crisis chorus. The CJ’s decision was overturned by a majority of the jurists in the CA; and it has settled, for now, that the government had not transgressed the Constitution. The opposition, as expected, has signalled its intention to appeal to the CCJ, the said course of action that the government would have taken had it again been defeated.

Promptly upon the delivery of the CA’s decision, the PPP, its supporters and its sympathisers have revoked their confidence in the judiciary. The chants for respect for the democratic process and our Constitution have quieted into historic silence. The constitutional crisis has now morphed into a judicial crisis. There is the suggestion that the two Justices are pro-government; they are pawns, and they have been promised substantive posts. Jagdeo is reported to have said, either in form or in effect, that every right-minded person (or Guyanese) know that 33 is a majority of 65. The inference is, I dare say, that the two Justices who have overturned the CJ’s decision are not right-minded. It is unfortunate that we resort to articulating our disagreement in these terms.

Another usual commentator who, too, played a leading role in the call for the government to demit office and in the choir of the constitutional crisis has even branded one of the judges as lackluster, and credits the judge with descending upon him a sleeping spell. The goodly gentleman had invoked, under one of my posts, a recitation of actions of PNC thugs in 1998. When I asked kindly that this reference be contextualised and justified, I was referred by him to a collection of reports from 1998 and 2001, none of which clarified for me the point he was making.

He then concluded that the reports and his comments testify to the likelihood of a repetition of disruptive actions by government supporters had the CA upheld the CJ’s decision. This, too, is unfortunate, as it is nothing shy of a logical fallacy and a brutally unsubstantiated conclusion. These random tossing about of slanted reports and statistics by those of us who have appropriated to ourselves public voices are the ingredients of disruption to the fabric of our society.

Jagdeo has announced that his party is withholding its participation from the National Assembly until the CCJ determines the no-confidence motion case. I have been steady in my criticisms and critiques of the then opposition (now government) when it was leader of the pageantry of walking out of, or abstaining from, parliament. The people have elected and selected you both to conduct their business. Get on with it.

This practice of amplifying one’s schoolboy ego and jilted lover’s emotions is improper for the governance of this country, be your role the governing party or the opposition. Our democracy cannot be a garment we put on today and take off tomorrow. Our judiciary cannot be the saintly guardian of our democracy and our Constitution only on the days it does not bruise our egos.

There is absolutely no reason why the business of the Guyanese people should be stymied while we all wait with our breathing suspended for the CCJ to determine this matter. If we are urging respect for the judicial and democratic process, then let us lead by example.

Regards
Ronald J. Daniels