Burnham was ahead of his time
According to Henry Kissinger, Basket 111‘was destined to play a major role in the disintegration of the Soviet satellite orbit and became a testimonial to all human rights activists in NATO countries’ (Kissinger, Henry. (1994) Diplomacy. Touchstone Books, New York). The writing was on the wall and with a more proportionate distribution of votes, the system would have appeared liberalizing, but the plurality would have kept Burnham in office to protect the interest of his constituents but still provide enough space, as it did the PPP in 2011, for the possible development of a government of national unity until such time as the races became more integrated. Forbes Burnham’s foresight may have been correct, for in 1981, Ronald Reagan came to government in the United States and became almost evangelical about the human rights context of ‘American exceptionalism’, making human rights ‘a weapon in the day-to-day struggle against communism’ (Ibid.). His government began to pressure the Burnham regime, which, if Halim Majeed is to be believed (Forbes Burnham: National Reconciliation and National Unity 1984-1985. (2005) Global Communications, New York), then began to make preparations for a government of national unity. But Burnham died and his successor had other ideas.
As to why Article 127(2) exists if not to end gridlock, in my view it is the usual organisational design that indicates what should be done in the normal absence of employees, in this case the chancellor and chief justice. It was not intended to break a deadlock in the initial appointment process. This constitutes my final statement on this issue in this column; there is much more that could be said but space does not allow. However, as requested by Mr. Nandlall, one day I may well elaborate on my contribution to trying to get the PPP to take a course different from the destructive one it ultimately set itself upon.