Reforming the Constitutional Reform Commission (CRC) will prove a more constructive test of whether the radically different composition of Parliament augurs for more constructive politics, or simply prolongs the traditional tedious confrontation. From its inception in 1999 the last CRC was expertly managed by senior members from both Government and opposition, as Chair and Secretary of the Commission.
The current CRC was conceived with no regard to the spirit of the Herdmanston Accord, which remains the most realistic fundamental guide to constitutional reform in Guyana. The Accord aimed to ensure that the interests of sectors were represented rather than particular organizations, with the ruling party doing no more than indicate the number of representatives to be assigned to each sector, leaving sectors to determine the manner of choosing their representatives. Effective control by one party is the core violation of the Herdmanston spirit which sought to re-tool governance mechanisms in ways which encouraged and enabled Guyanese to relate to people who would normally find excuses not to talk to each other.
The Accord sought to embody a process for reconciliation and healing of society, following the violence of 1997. In other words, as the reform process develops the society begins to heal and be reconciled, rather than antagonistic factions developing a blueprint to be implemented in future by others. The constitutional reform process itself must be a healing process.
These hopes were, in part, embodied in the legislation to be used in future CRC. Constitutional (Amendment no.6) of 2001. The pertinent clauses of that Act are as follows: 119A (1) The National Assembly shall establish a Standing Parliamentary Committee for Constitutional Reform and 119B: In its work the Committee shall have power to co-opt experts.
In light of this approach to Constitutional reform as a continuous process of reconciliation the Guyana Human Rights Association (GHRA) strongly urges that the ruling party amend its proposals both for the composition and scope of the proposed Commission, along the lines of that legislation.
The State selecting which civic sectors should provide members and which individuals should represent them reflects the Government’ distrust towards non-party involvement in governance activities. Rather than the positives which a more inclusively-structured CRC could generate, a polarized initiative would suggest more concern on the part of the organizers to be able to say the event happened rather than for any benefits it might produce.
The GHRA recognizes that the culture of civil society in Guyana to date has not reached the levels to which the Herdmanston Accord aspires. As a society Guyana is culturally insecure, not having attained the democratic confidence to trust our legal and administrative institutions to protect us from corrupt or ambitious individuals. We are all challenged to accept that someone with different opinions can hold the same principles as we do.
With this in mind, should the ruling party insist on identifying particular individuals or organizations to serve on Commissions or Boards in general, such candidates ought to submit themselves to a process of validation by the sector it is intended they represent. Alternatively, depending on the circumstances, the sectors identified for inclusion should take steps to choose their own representatives, ignoring any specific unilateral recommendations the ruling party may make.
At a minimum any individual or organization specifically nominated by the ruling party for membership of the CRC should seek the approval of the leader of the opposition, presumably from WIN, in order to rid itself of any taint of partisanship.
In any event, at the end of the day whatever recommendations emerge from a CRC will need parliamentary approval before becoming law, thereby rendering unnecessary the current level of party control of the Commission.
A Commission with a majority of members drawn from the non-political party sector, chosen by procedures not subject to ruling party pressure and under an independent chairperson is the only guarantee that a Constitutional Reform process will come to fruition.
Executive Committee
Guyana Human Rights Association (GHRA)
