.jpg)
present constitution? The rules of the game are very clear and state that a simple majority determines who becomes President. It also gives
him/her constitutional authority to appoint all cabinet ministers regardless of having one seat less in parliament. The constitution also
specifies coalitions must be made before elections and not afterwards.
Let’s examine the pros and cons of President Donald Ramotar going the route demanded by his detractors.
1.President Ramotar will have to get approval from his colleagues and the PPP/C party. President Janet Jagan handed over power to Mr. Bharrat Jagdeo by prior PPP party approval and full public disclosure before her 1997 election.
2. Should the presidency be handed over to the PNC/APNU Granger or his co-equal AFC’s Khemraj Ramjattan? Would the AFC and Ramjattan easily concede to Granger or instead demand the presidency? Without them the PNC/APNU is impotent.
3 Any Guyanese or PPP supporters can trigger a constitutional crisis in court that the abridgement of President Ramotar handing over the presidency was misleading and a violation of their vote conferred in them.
Conclusively, these problems would require fundamental constitutional changes. Guyana’s constitution specifically requires a 2/3 voting
approval and not a simple majority as a prerequisite for any changes. But
even so, if the PPP/C government were to agree to change the constitution, would it just hand over power to either parliamentary party or the joint opposition, by a one- issue change to give them a break? The opposition has become accustomed to survival on “Jagannaut” (like in astronaut) historical PPP/C munificence like their acquiescence to impose Proportional Representation(PR), lending critical support and secret talks for a national government in the 1970s.
A smug WPA demanded half of the cabinet prior to the 1992 elections and refused the prime minister job afterwards. Will constitutional changes be only confined to methodology of how the presidency is determined, i.e., by a majority of parliamentary seats or would it be inclusive of fundamental and comprehensive changes to the entire Guyana constitution? The highly respected Ralph Ramkarran cannot be wrong that the PPP/C is best equipped to ensure all Guyanese are fully empowered given their
historical concerns. Will ideological rigidity prevent or guarantee their annihilation and irrelevance at this conflux? Finally the PPP/C
can now boldly resolve Guyana’s ethnic security fears, demand conclusive settlement of balancing the armed forces and civil service and championing Amerindians, immigrants, women, gays like socialists and animals to be guaranteed equal rights. Black demands to determine their own destiny should finally realise emancipation in a federated system of government. Just as an historical, numerical anomaly gives militant Afro-centric advocates (their few vocal opposites are laughably dubbed ‘Indian supremacists’!) their fuel to argue that their numbers disproportionately prevent realisation of the presidency and political power it must equally safeguard Amerindian historical interests, political power and entitlement and right to the presidency by the same criteria. Other Guyanese include the Portuguese, Europeans, mixed races and Chinese like Justice Arthur Chung’s embryonic election to the presidency by the 1966 independence constitution must also find accommodation.
Guyana’s anthem proudly includes reference to its six races. But with the obvious increasing racial combinations amongst us, the anthem is an outdated antique like the motto. Guyana is now more than a land of six peoples. In our militant quest to right all wrongs, our political pundits and intellectuals can suggest practical solutions to emancipate our 60-year contentiousness, better yet remaining a single country within federalism.
