RESOLVING THE BUDGET CONUNDRUM


The Chief Justice’s decision in the budget case will not necessarily lead to what Opposition Leader, David Granger, said might be a ‘car crash’ or ‘unintended consequences.’ If the Government and Opposition extrapolate from the Chief Justice’s conclusions, a budget can be produced.

Stripping away the complexities from the Chief Justice’s analysis, a procedure can be discerned for approval of a budget. Based on his ruling, the Opposition cannot cut or reduce, but may withhold its approval, for specific items in the budget.  Upon the conclusion of the consideration of the estimates, during which the Opposition will no doubt withhold approval for substantial portions of it, the Minister of Finance can then submit amended estimates of a reduced sum to take account of the exclusion of those portions of the items, or sub-items, which the Opposition does not support. The Appropriation Bill will then reflect the amended estimates and will therefore obtain Opposition support. This is procedurally feasible and requires no negotiations.

Continue reading “RESOLVING THE BUDGET CONUNDRUM”

WHAT THE CHIEF JUSTICE RULED


The section on Financial Procedures in the Standing Orders of the National Assembly is the same today as it was in 1969. In that year the Standing Orders were amended, no doubt to bring them in line with the provisions of the Independence Constitution of 1966. The Standing Orders had been approved by the same National Assembly which had approved in the Independence Constitution.

The Financial Procedures provide for each head of expenditure to be “considered”  and “decided” by the National Assembly. It specifically provides for amendments to increase or reduce any head of expenditure. In accordance with the Constitution, it states that an amendment to increase may only be moved by a Minister who must signify Cabinet approval. No such requirement exists in relation to an amendment to reduce. Cabinet approval is therefore not necessary to reduce.

Continue reading “WHAT THE CHIEF JUSTICE RULED”

ELECTION RESULTS


Last week’s headlines highlighted efforts by GECOM to speed up the reporting of election results by introducing electronic counting and compilation of votes for a limited area, presumably as a pilot project. The last general and regional elections were characterized be extensive delay in announcing election results in Guyana and there was an outcry against it. International observers commented unfavourably about the delay. Local government elections are likely to be held this year and the same problem will arise again with no obvious solution in sight.

All elections in Guyana since 1992 have been free and fair as attested to by international and accredited local observers. The allegations about election rigging since then have been contrived for political purposes and has resulted in the past in disturbances and violence. However, politicians appear to  need a whipping boy to explain their defeat to their supporters and assuage their disappointment and anger. Allegations of election rigging is the most effective explanation for a loss.

Continue reading “ELECTION RESULTS”

A SOCIAL CONTRACT FOR GUYANA


(This article, slightly amended, was first published in 2010 in the Mirror and Guyana Chronicle. It attracted no comments. Though somewhat dated,  the views might be considered still relevant).

Guyana is not unique in its system of adversarial politics. In fact, Guyana shares with most democratic countries an elected legislature to which competing parties seek membership. The extent of that membership depends on the votes received by political parties in elections. Each political party at these elections seek to persuade the electorate that it is the best equipped to lead the country. This continues in Parliament after the elections where the Government’s policies are subject to scrutiny by the opposition.

Continue reading “A SOCIAL CONTRACT FOR GUYANA”

A PETTING ZOO FOR PARLIAMENTARIANS


At Dr. Roger Luncheon’s press conference last week, the approval of funds for the establishment of a petting zoo took only second place to the continuing controversy over the USAID LEAD Programme to which the Government has taken objection. In announcing Government’s no objection to the expenditure of $32.5 million for the petting zoo, Dr. Luncheon publicly broke Cabinet solidarity by announcing his objection to the decision to fund the petting zoo which he harshly termed “foolishness” even though he did not know what it was.

It is not known if the tone of Dr. Luncheon’s weekly condemnation of people and things at his press conferences is in inverse proportion to the extent of his knowledge of the particular subject. The violence of his condemnation of the petting zoo, seems to suggest this to be the case. If so, it brings into focus the great strength of his objection to the USAID Project. Shouldn’t we conclude that he does not know what it is?

Continue reading “A PETTING ZOO FOR PARLIAMENTARIANS”