…in politics
In a very sympathetic letter on the sugar workers’ plight – occasioned by the President’s unilateralism in executing his pre-elections promise to stick it to the sugar industry, one analyst made a throwaway comment approving the President’s unilateralism on his GECOM chair appointment. In this he agrees with the Chief Justice, but since the case was appealed to the CCJ, “the fat lady” hasn’t sung her song as yet.
In your Eyewitness’ estimation, some folks are still missing the point about the compromise struck by President Carter of the US and Premier George Price of Belize who crafted the “formula” that broke the impasse on getting out of rigged elections in Guyana. The whole point of the formula was to seek to achieve a greater legitimacy in the electoral process that had been abused for over two decades – in the eyes of the Guyanese people.
ALL the people – not just the supporters of one party. After all, Burnham had been allowed to get away with his rigging and fiddling of elections by unilaterally picking a pliable and pliant GECOM chair during those 20 years because he played on the fears of his supporters about “those people” winning. Those fears are still there and Granger is hoping he’ll be able to get with matching the Founder Leader’s stride with his unilateralism.
Now of course no one can say with absolute certainty that (Chief?) Justice Benjamin will be as pliant as the other two real Chief Justices who’d been picked by Burnham. But this is simply the dilemma that’s presented by all inductive reasoning. Not because previous unilaterally appointed Chief Justices allowed the rigging of elections means this one will do the same. But in real life one has to go with the odds. We can’t be absolutely sure the sun will rise in the East tomorrow, can we?
But because of our experience, we confidently peer out every morning and expect to see the sun. And it’s the same with this presidential unilateralism on picking the GECOM chair. While partisans of the PNC (let’s get real with this “APNU” business, shall we?) are willing to close their eyes – even as they hold their noses – surely no one expects those who were on the receiving end of rigging for two decades will roll over and play dead.
The courts (and commentators) should therefore look to the SPIRIT of the law – not just the LETTER. A “poorly drafted” law shouldn’t be allowed to cause harm. And that’s why, early on, the courts invented the Maxims of Equity.
In this case your Eyewitness suggests: “Equity will not allow a statute to be used as a cloak for fraud.” Much less the Constitution.
…in political proposals
Back in the Middle Ages, there was a phenomenon called “scholasticism”, practiced by – who else? – scholastics. These were a bunch of churchmen trying to break out of the thinking of the “Dark Ages”. It was actually a METHOD of learning that concentrated in extending knowledge by “inference”. Now with this method, of course, everything depends on your starting premises.
One famous example that illustrates their methodology has to do with figuring out “how many angels could dance on the head of a pin?” Yep…that’s right. Think of what premises THEY started from!! Anyhow, your Eyewitness was reminded of the Scholastics’ fatuous disputations and inferences by the welter of proposals on us getting out of our political morass that are being thrown out by our newspapers “scholars”.
All of them, unfortunately refuse to acknowledge the existence of the real world as they spin their proposals.
In the real world of Guyanese ethnic politics, do they really think decisions are made by “rational choice”?
…on LGE
APNU says they’ll contest the LGE together!! As opposed to what? The five micro-parties contesting against the PNC and PPP? Ha!!
But what about the PNC’s old vow not to contest as a party but allow “the people” to select local leaders?
