WPA `disturbed' by Presidential succession plan
ANOTHER political party yesterday voiced its dissatisfaction over the imminent appointment of Finance Minister Bharrat Jagdeo to Head of State following the resignation of President Janet Jagan on Sunday. In a statement, the Working People's Alliance (WPA) said it regrets Mrs Jagan's failing health and wishes her speedy recovery, but is "disturbed" by the Presidential succession plan which bears the mark of the doctrine and practice of paramountcy of the party. The WPA said the move also shows contempt for Civic members, and this ought not to be tolerated, whether or not it is acceptable to the civic side. The public expects maximum contribution from persons who assume the mantle of lawmakers, the release stated. "The principle underlying the succession moves of the PPP is even more dangerous than the practice. "The corruption which the doctrine of paramountcy has caused in the public mind is very evident in the article written by a Guyanese columnist in which he claims in referring to the President Jagan that by Wednesday `she would have appointed Jagdeo as the country's new President and consequently Head of State'" the WPA remarked. It said when a "seasoned" political journalist writes such an article, it is clear that the ravages of the doctrine of one person rule are more serious than had been suspected. The WPA outlines the following features, which it said are the actions adopted by the PPP and should be kept in mind: ** Even though in the 1997 election campaign, the PPP did announce that it would set aside Prime Minister Hinds in favour of Finance Minister Bharrat Jagdeo, that party did nothing to alter the way the Constitution provides for filling a vacancy in the Office of the President. ** This lack of action suggests that the PPP regards the Constitution, even in government matters, as less important than party decisions. WPA is not discounting party decisions, but is insisting that a party which enters into government, must, in government affairs, act according to the letter and spirit of the Constitution ** When a government undermines, or sidesteps the Constitution, it is a clear invitation to other forces to take a similar path, if they need invitation. In this sense the government is, perhaps, unwittingly opposing itself ** More directly, the PPP failed, despite the opportunities provided by the Constitutional Reform Commission, to take the succession procedure seriously and to make recommendations convenient to its point of view. Again, this warns the nation that the PPP does not rate constitutional behaviour highly. ** For the first time, since 1980, the PPP openly violated the article which declares that the Prime Minister shall be the leader of Governmental business in the National Assembly. From 1992 to date, it has not explained if this practice is due to their Prime Minister's peculiarities, or to the doctrine of paramountcy, which perhaps declares in defiance of the Constitution that the Leader of the House should be a party person. ** It is undeniable that Mr Hinds, who in 1992, was entirely without government experience, was selected by Dr Jagan as running mate and Prime Minister, in order to return to some kind of multi racial leadership of the government. It is also hard fact that the doctrine of the ban on the civic element from succeeding to Presidency arose after the death of President Cheddi Jagan, who though reported as choosing Ms Jagan as his replacement, did not take the same opportunity in preventing the succession to the Presidency of Mr Hinds. The PPP is, therefore, falsely claiming that it is following in the footsteps of the late leader. ** Clearly the Constitution did not intend that at the point before the emergency of the vacancy, a Prime Minister's term of office should be intercepted for the sake of a convenient succession. It seemed to intend rather that someone who had been the President's chief assistant should succeed in order to avoid instability. The arrangements now adopted do not have the public good in mind. It puts the party squarely before the country, the WPA concluded. 
|