Whenever a country is facing a crisis, the expectation is for the political leadership to buckle down in immediate, genuine and meaningful engagements with the intention of deriving practical solutions. In these situations, it becomes imperative on the Government of the day to initiate those necessary discussions in the interest of the country.
That said, nothing prevents the Opposition from indicating the need for such talks and making itself available to be engaged at any time. Further, these discussions do not have the luxury of convenient time, for the crisis demands urgent engagements whether night or day to find a way forward. Sadly, these expectations never materialised during the ongoing constitution-related crisis Guyana is currently experiencing.
That is noted in the context of the June 18 ruling of the Caribbean Court of Justice (CCJ) on matters pertaining to the unilateral appointment of the Chairman of the Guyana Elections Commission (GECOM) and the December 21, 2018 No-Confidence Motion (NCM). It was clear from the CCJ that the Constitution was breached in the manner in which the GECOM Chairman was appointed and that the NCM was valid.
Following its ruling, the CCJ offered time for the political leadership to engage with the hope of reaching consensus on resolving the current stalemate. That did not materialise since, shockingly, two days after the ruling, the President wrote the Leader of the Opposition inviting him to a meeting sometime after June 24 – the day when the CCJ indicated it would present its consequential orders. That suggests a lack of intent of President’s behalf to urgently engage the Opposition Leader in the face of a national crisis. It may even suggest that the President is paying scant regard to the current situation engulfing the country even though the Opposition indicated its willingness to meet.
Even more shocking was the response of the lawyer representing GECOM. He said that a new voters’ list can be ready by December 25 at the earliest, a month after what the former Chairman would have advised the President. He also cited holidays during the period offered by the CCJ as prohibitive reasons for related engagements.
One can safely deduce that lawyers’ responses reflect the position of their clients. In the current circumstances, the responses offered from the Government side may suggest a lack of intent to quickly work towards finding a solution. That intent was not obscured throughout the process as the Government demonstrated a preference to delay the constitutional mandate of a successful NCM.
Since the NCM, the Government has apparently surrendered to GECOM its role of deciding when elections can be held. That also suggests a position of not necessarily wanting to find an immediate solution. Such scenarios would explain that believed lack of intent to meet even it means burning the midnight oil to have the situation resolve and why holidays were noted as challenges to engage.
This unavoidably brings into question the reactions, or lack thereof, by the President. In assessing these, it would be useful to remind that just recently his most senior Minister, in terms of portfolio held, boldly disregarded the CCJ’s ruling claiming that that court cannot rule on such matters for Guyana.
The President, thus far, is silent on that rejection of the country’s highest court by one of his subjects; just as he is noticeably silent on the frightening developments within the Police Force following the revelations of whistle blowers and alleged public misconduct of some Ministers. The latter two aside, the President seems to miss that he is the Head of State for all Guyanese and in a time of crisis, his leadership must reflect that.
The expectation would be for him to act above the fray of party politics and to endeavour to engage necessary stakeholders to find consensus on national issues. Many are convinced that during his tenure, he missed opportunities to step above the fray in dealing with national concerns. The engagement, as proposed by the CCJ on June 18, was the latest and arguably the most important.
There was no immediate reaching out to the Leader of the Opposition to demonstrate a real and non-partisan intent to put the affairs of the country above his party’s desire. His letter of June 20 may vindicate that belief for it speaks to a meeting sometime after June 24.
That could be any subsequent date including one in November or December. A time frame which seems to be a firm desire in the context of his Government’s wish for when elections should be held; elections that should have already been held as of March 21.
The letter in question was boasted of as being demonstrative of wanting to engage while claiming that a response from the Leader of the Opposition was yet to be forthcoming. The content also speaks to actions not considered to be above the fray.
