Without exception, political parties made the promise in their manifestos to have constitutional reform, even as some clamour to scrap the constitution. Parliamentary and national conversations on the Constitution of Guyana should begin as a matter of priority. Whether the desire to amend the Constitution is based on understanding or absence thereof, or the desire to pursue a partisan political agenda is not clear. The presence of this contestation reinforces the importance of facilitating conversations.
It first has to be understood, what is a constitution. A constitution is generally accepted as representing the philosophical credence of a country and its citizens. In the case of the United States, its constitution represents the philosophical vision of the founding fathers. They envisioned a land of freedom, having fled Britain, and equality for all, designed under a type of government they believed would facilitate the pursuit of happiness within prescribed laws and electoral system.
Britain, which in no small measure has shaped Guyana’s politics, has no written constitution. The country is governed by a philosophy known as the Magna Carta. According to the online Brittanica.com it represents the “charter of English liberties granted by King John on June 15, 1215, under threat of civil war and reissued, with alterations, in 1216, 1217, and 1225.” It is further advised that “By declaring the sovereign to be subject to the rule of law and documenting the liberties held by ‘free men,’ the Magna Carta provided the foundation for individual rights in Anglo-American jurisprudence.”
It is up for debate whether the two references are deficient to the respective societies. What is not debatable is the uniqueness of these documents as the foundation upon which those societies are governed and the welfare of the citizens attended to. The same holds for any constitution, including Guyana’s. A recognition of this would beg the question whether Guyanese are aware and or supportive of the philosophy that informed the creation of our Constitution.
Truthful answer of the question should determine how Guyanese could proceed, having been given the opportunity to decide whether the philosophy remains applicable or should be discarded. Some of the original framers of the Constitution are still alive. This publication encourages them to share with us, in whatever medium, the values (moral and societal) behind the Constitution.
Most members of the 1999 Constitutional Reform Commission (CRC) are alive. They too are invited to share their thoughts, and that of the philosophical underpinnings that informed the Reform Report. It would also aid understanding of the outstanding bi-partisan agreed Recommendations that never reached the National Assembly to facilitate debates and legislation.
The CRC thought it wise to have a Parliamentary Standing Committee for Constitutional Reform which has made its way into the Constitution. This gives rise to the need to understand why this Committee was considered necessary and whether it has lived up to the rationale for its existence. Then it becomes important to hear from Parliament how often the Committee has met and what has been its work thus far.
Parliament should also advise why Members have not passed legislation for the many articles in the Constitution which by their inaction have made those articles ineffective. Parliamentarians need to advise whether their action or inaction is a function of tardiness, disinterest, legislative focus or absence of understanding what is required to make the Constitution effective.
The pivotal role of the draftsmen and women in writing the Articles in the Constitution cannot be overlooked. Their work would have been influenced by an understanding of what the original and reformed architects and people desired. Even as some may say they did not play a role in the original conceptualisation of the constitution the reform process sought to correct this. Who did not play a role was a choice they made.
Most crucial of it all- is their knowledge of the Constitution or ‘knowledge’ based on misinformation of the Constitution. No constitution, whether liked or despised, is meant to be tinkered with lightly. It requires serious deliberations, which foremost include understanding of its philosophical underpinnings and knowing it, before proceeding.
The United States Constitution can be carried in a shirt pocket. Britain has none. What both countries have in common is the volume of laws they have created from their constitution and Magna Carta. The Constitution of Guyana is the thickest, but Guyana has not created laws of equal magnitude. Why is this so?
Efforts to achieve reform should not ignore the aforesaid because it would help to resolve not exacerbate the disquiets. Only after understanding and knowledge would Guyanese be able to make an informed opinion whether there is a need for a reformed constitution. Time to start the conversations.
