Power and perception

Nearly everyone is familiar with Lord Acton’s oft-quoted adage about power. But the corrosive effect of power has several dimensions, not all of which might be manifest in any given individual. One of the commonest features of a power affliction, however, is an increasing detachment from reality and the inability to see how one’s actions are perceived by others. Nearly all political leaders start off with good intentions, viz, to enhance the lot of citizens and improve the circumstances of the nation, but not all of them are destined to achieve success, let alone effect the transformation of their societies. In some cases, the reasons for failure cannot be laid exclusively at their door, nevertheless, how those who operate under difficult constraints respond, may say a great deal about the degree to which power has distorted their apprehension of the real world.

It is clear that the government was blind-sided by the vote of no-confidence of December 21, but even before that, President David Granger had been making some untenable decisions, such as the unilateral appointment of a GECOM Chairman. His appointee, Justice James Patterson then went on to use his casting vote consistently on the side of the government appointed commissioners. But of course, after December 21, the political world entered into an unreal cosmos, following a trajectory which those in office should have known was not viable. If they indeed knew their legal case against the no-confidence vote was unwinnable once it got the length of the CCJ, which they surely knew it would, then they must have had it in mind to try and delay the holding of elections. If they did not know, then their vision must have been blighted by power.

The CCJ finally spoke, validating the no-confidence vote, and deeming Justice Patterson’s appointment not in alignment with the Constitution. In its consequential orders, the Judges of the CCJ simply applied the Constitution, which would require an election to be held within three months, counting from June 18. In addition, they exhorted both sides to arrive at an agreement which could lead to the appointment of a GECOM Chairperson as soon as possible. That was on July 12, and what has happened since then? As the weary electorate well knows, nothing much.

As our Page One comment stated on Monday, Article 106 (6) of the Constitution mandates that “The Cabinet including the President shall resign if the Government is defeated by the vote of a majority of all the elected members of the National Assembly on a vote of confidence.” But neither the President nor the Cabinet has resigned, and there is no evidence they intend to do so.

And if that were not enough, GECOM has proposed to embark on a house-to-house registration exercise starting yesterday. Since it had earlier advised that this process would not finish before December 25, it is unlikely that any election could take place before next year, when the government’s term would have come to an end anyway if the noconfidence vote had not intervened. The fact that the coalition had found nothing wrong with the list when it was used for local government elections in November last year, and that everyone knowledgeable in the field has adjudged house-to-house registration quite unnecessary in order to hold a poll in three months, has made no impression on President Granger. He appears to be prepared in this case, as in the earlier cited one, to contravene the CCJ ruling by flouting the Constitution.

There is too the matter of the appointment of a new GECOM Chair. On Tuesday, the electorate heaved a collective sigh of relief when it was announced that after a meeting between President Granger and Opposition Leader Bharrat Jagdeo, they had jointly announced that four candidates had been found “not unacceptable” for the appointment of GECOM Chairperson. The President’s words at a subsequent press briefing were that they had been able to come to “broad agreement.” So far, so good. But then in Guyana the course of political negotiation never did run smooth. The following day, the Opposition Leader rejected two names suggested by the Head of State to add to the list, which he could legitimately do, and then submitted four additional names. The meeting scheduled for Thursday was then postponed, because, the public was told, the President was still considering the four new names which had been given to him by Mr Jagdeo.

What the Constitution actually requires is that the Opposition Leader submit to the President a list of six names, from which he will extract one who is “not unacceptable” to him. That the two leaders are currently negotiating on the matter is simply a stratagem to ensure that the Head of State will not reject everyone on the lists submitted by his opposition counterpart, as he did on three previous occasions. If there are now four names ‘not unacceptable’ to him, it really doesn’t matter who the new ones proposed by Mr Jagdeo are; they would just be padding to produce the total of six which the Constitution prescribes. The President only needs one candidate, and now he has four to choose from, so he can simply ignore the rest. What then, one wonders, is he dithering for?

The coalition government came to office on a promise of the return of the rule of law. That it should now be so blatantly refusing to adhere to the rulings of the CCJ, therefore, is nothing short of unbelievable. There has been nothing done by this government in its four years in office which has caused such damage to the fragile democratic fabric of this society and to its brittle legal framework. In a very fundamental sense, this has set us back decades, not years.

Which brings us back to the head of government, who has it in his power to ensure that the coalition is in compliance with the decisions of this country’s highest appeal court. Just what is going on in his mind? It is not that he is not an intelligent man who is more than capable of reading and understanding the Constitution and comprehending all the implications of the CCJ’s conservatory orders. It’s as if he is determined to see out this government’s full term, and is prepared to bulldoze through the Constitution, rules and institutions in order to achieve that. Is it that he believes that the supposed coming oil bonanza will redound to the benefit of his government, so that the longer he and his coalition remain in office, the better for their re-election chances? If so, he is probably deluding himself.

Be that as it may, one has to speculate on whether the Head of State is really grasping the political reality, and if he realises how the public perceives him. Of course, in an ethnically divided society such as this, his own constituency will support him virtually no matter what he does, but he came to office because of the votes of electors outside that constituency. They are not likely to return. And he needs to appeal to a wider spectrum of the populace if he wants to come back to power. As it is, however, people are tired of the tension and uncertainty being generated by the actions of his government, and his presidential air notwithstanding, he himself is associated with intransigence and inflexibility in their minds.

What those in power want does not authorise them to ignore society’s laws and rules. More especially, being in power gives no one the right to violate the Constitution.