Political leaders have not met with civil society on the confidence motion

Dear Editor,

This nation is at the juncture of one of our most important acts of decision-making that can determine the future of our country and all Guyanese, as well as create long term impact on the entire region in a way that is already creating concern for how we as a people resolve current issues stemming from a confidence vote.

It is important to note that even as reference is made to a successful confidence vote, this is done in a context where the Government, based on concerns expressed, has determined it will exercise its right to seek judicial determination. Likewise, the Leader of the Opposition and others have too exercised their right to approach the court for determination. These acts augur well for the nation’s growth and stability, and hopefully political maturity.

Guyana’s tripartite government structure is made up of the Executive, Legislature and the Judiciary. The Executive is responsible for the day-today administration of the State; the Legislature, the making of laws and oversight of the Executive; and the Judiciary, the custodian and interpreter of the Laws and Constitution of Guyana.

The confidence vote has direct effect on the Executive branch since it is outlined in Article 106(6), “The Cabinet including the President shall resign if the Government is defeated by the vote of a majority of all the elected members in the National Assembly on a vote of confidence.” Article 106(7) goes on to say, “Notwithstanding its defeat, the Government shall remain in office and shall hold an election within three months, or such longer period as the National Assembly shall by resolution supported by not less than two-thirds of the votes of all the elected members of the National Assembly determine and shall resign after the President takes the oath of office following the election.”

Christopher Ram has approached the Court for its interpretation of Article 106(6) and (7). This augurs well for our democracy. It is expected the Court’s determination of the matter will provide society a course of action in dealing with the issue of the Confidence motion and present us with a way forward.

Sensitivities exist on both sides of the political divide as it relates to the confidence issues and these are causing the battle lines to be drawn not only between political groups but racial groups. A level of frustration is growing within the group(s) who felt that they were denied opportunity by both political groups to adequately partake in the nation’s patrimony. The political operatives and their vocal supporters need to take note of the growing discontent and whatever is being done we need to be careful and responsible not to be doing things that can be interpreted as tribalism and triumphalism.

All the interpretations that are being advanced and opportunities taken to demonise persons and groups will not help the situation. In this regard where there is little or no control over social media the mainstream media will be tasked with shouldering greater responsibility at this time, in helping us navigate this period, with sobriety and reason. Government which has control of the state-owned media is being called on to ensure these media houses distinguish themselves in reportage on the issue in a manner that will weld rather than further fracture the society.

Regardless of the circumstance and whatever decision the court will arrive at, leaders, both political and wider society, will have to sit down and chart a way forward. The act of destroying interpersonal relationships which can contribute to an absence of trust between and among persons, organisations and agencies makes it more difficult for the collective to be taken along a common route.

This is not the time for faint hearts and minds because the future of this society, given the possibilities that will come with oil and gas, requires a strong civil society. There must be such group (s) irrespective of which political party one supports, that can stand up and objectively analyse both sides of the political spectrum and be able to unflinchingly hold them to account, even as we hold ourselves consistent with our laws and the role and benefit of all within the society. A disservice is being done to society as a whole when fear and/or personal interest trumps the national good.

What is observed is that the political leaders, on both sides, have taken time out to brief foreign countries, regional and international, as to their perception of the confidence motion, their interpretation and position, but have not taken any time to meet with the leaders in civil society to share with them or hear their views. The message that is being sent is that retention and acquisition of political power, which belongs to the people, is a responsibility of external forces. It is further being said that we the people, civil society, are not consequential to this process.

No doubt the diplomatic community would have taken note. Even though they may find their engagement worthwhile, they would undoubtedly note and wonder why the politicians are not interacting with the people. They know in their societies the importance and value for an inclusive democracy and that such exclusion would not have been countenanced by the people they serve. This fact must not escape us. This simple fact is contributory to many of the problems and challenges we continue to face with successive governments.

We remain One People, living in One Nation, and we must work assiduously towards this One Destiny. We all want to be treated with respect and dignity, to be protected by the nation’s laws and equally participate in the nation’s development and benefit from its resources. Working to guarantee and fulfill this remains our best way forward, our best means of survival, against internal and external forces seeking to divide, control or exploit us to satisfy their own ends.

Yours faithfully,

Lincoln Lewis.