On reforming the Constitution of Guyana
The Constitutional Corner
Guyanese are now involved in one of the most important exercises in the relatively short history of their state. I am, of course, adverting to the attempt at constitutional reform. This is never easy to achieve in any country; moreso in one with the characteristics of Guyana. We are aware of the frequently articulated and debated statement that Guyana is a plural or heterogeneous society. Those who are associated with such claims and assertions tend to focus on the racial, ethnic, religious, etc. characteristics of the society and some of their consequences for the emergence of the much hoped-for Guyanese nation. The major concern is that focus on the aforementioned characteristics tends to divide rather than unite citizens and seriously undermines a commitment to the nation which can serve to minimise the importance of such characteristics. One of the worrying manifestations of contemporary Guyanese life must surely be the emphasis which is increasingly being placed on these characteristics by groups who, in effect, assert the superiority of the culture and values of their members. The search, in justification of such claims, reaches far back in Guyanese history and focuses on, inter alia, the circumstances in which groups were originally introduced into the Guyanese society, which group has contributed most to the emergence and progress of the society and, by implication, which group has superior claims to its governance, wealth or other features of the Guyanese society. Such pursuits tend to introduce further schisms in the society as the search is not for commonalities in the historical and colonial experience, i.e. those which cut across racial and ethnic considerations, but for the unique contribution of groups as compared with that of their counterparts. There are, of course, other features of the Guyanese society which exemplify its divided nature. These are easily appreciated by accessing news and views in the media of mass communication, both print and electronic. One of the problems that has always agitated my mind is the extent of the contribution which a constitution per se could make to addressing, redressing, and removing the serious social, economic and political problems in a state. It is important to raise this point since the tenor of some of the letters, etc., in the media often suggests that a skillfully crafted constitution, enjoying a high degree of consensus among citizens, is something of a panacea in a given state. The sentiment seems to be that, given such a constitution, Guyanese would be well on the way to solving their numerous problems. While by no means wanting to minimise the importance of the constitution in establishing, inter alia, the basic framework of the state in terms of defining its governmental structure, the limits of its powers and those of its functionaries; the rights and liberties of its citizens; and the balance which should exist between the two sets of claims; one should always bear in mind that, until life is breathed into a constitution, it remains basically a static instrument. In this context, we in Guyana need to remind ourselves that while a major element of constitutions that are widely recognised as successes is the skill with which they are crafted, much more than effective and efficient craftsmanship is usually involved in their success. Quite naturally, and usefully, it is important to examine constitutions and constitutional practices as they obtain in other countries. However, it always has to be borne in mind that one may seek to transplant constitutional forms from one social context to another but not the social context itself. More specifically, it is the quality of the interplay between the constitution and the social forces obtaining in a given society that ultimately gives a constitution its dynamism and efficacy. In this sense, it is perhaps not altogether a useful exercise to embark on a search for the ideal constitution for Guyana that would satisfy or meet the requirements of all Guyanese. For one thing, this is unlikely to be achieved if only because of the great divergence of views which is even now evident on the subject. For almost every point of view which is advocated with what may be regarded as logic, and as representing certain immutable laws, there are counters which are advocated with equal logic and force. This guarantees that, when the stage is reached at which the constitution is actually being drafted, a significant amount of bargaining, give and take, and compromise would have to be involved. The process in itself would not be easy, and one could, even at this point of time, predict that the new constitution which emerges would, like the existing one, not find favour with significant numbers of the Guyanese population. The hope has to be that the drafters could, at least, come up with the kind of instrument that would be acceptable to a wide cross-section of the population and which would not be so objectionable to others that they reject it out of hand. In the long run, the viability of the constitution would be determined by the extent to which groups feel that their interests, freedoms, and liberties are protected under its instrumentality. The results realised under a constitution are related to the nature and quality of the accompanying public administration system. In large measure, the quality of life of the ordinary citizen is dependent on the role that is assigned to, and performed by this aspect of the governmental process. In the specific context of Guyana, it is at least arguable that, even where laws are enacted in strict conformity with the provisions of the constitution, they could remain a dead letter, or their effect be nugatory where they are not regularly and impartially enforced. This could be easily illustrated by reference to the approach to our environment related laws. We have on the books beautifully drafted and enacted pieces of legislation and other types of instrument dealing with such matters. However, as the situation now obtains, it is as if this aspect of Guyanese life is largely unregulated; existing laws are not systematically applied and enforced. This is symptomatic of a serious potential problem in Guyana, i.e. ensuring that even where an acceptable constitution is brought into being its provisions are in spirit and fact adhered to by those in positions of power and authority, and even by the ordinary citizen. Arguably, we have not yet developed a culture of constitutionalism in Guyana. Therefore, as important as the need to craft and have promulgated an acceptable constitution is that of ensuring that, through a process of education, citizens generally have a realistic appreciation of their rights, duties and obligations and how these could in practice be protected and vindicated. 
|