Sacrificing the common good
Editorial
Kaieteur News
May 11, 2007
This past week the focus has been on one of the constitutional commissions, the Ethnic Relations Commission, and at this time it seems as if this body will be going the way of so many other organisations in the country. A vote in the national Assembly yesterday torpedoed any move to have members appointed to the commission.
The Ethnic Relations Commission grew out of what became known as the Herdmanston Accord brokered by some CARICOM Heads, the Guyana Government and the Opposition People's National Congress Reform.
At the time, the country was caught up in post-elections turmoil that appeared to take on ethnic proportions. There was a lengthy delay in the establishment of this commission when one considers that the Herdmanston Accord was brokered in 1998 and it was not until May 6, 2003 that President Bharrat Jagdeo and Opposition Leader Robert Corbin signed a communiqué giving life to this commission.
That very day some of the members were sworn in after various organisations submitted names for appointment to the commission. The last of the commissioners were said to have been sworn in on August 26. This would mean that some members of the commission could continue in office until that date.
Effectively, then, the terms of office of the members of the ERC would end on August 26. But what happens after then?
The Appointive Committee met and discussed ways and means of appointing members to the commission, making the process transparent. The proposal left the Appointive Committee with the backing of all members—Government and Opposition alike. But inside the National Assembly yesterday, a member found what was considered a measure of conflict with the constitution.
And although this glitch was removed, the motion failed to get a passage through the House. We are left to believe that the issue is more than the apparent conflict with the constitution.
Over time there has been dissatisfaction in certain quarters with aspects of the operations of the ERC. Some felt that the organisation was not entirely neutral when it came to certain issues. In particular, parties picked on the Chairman who gained nomination to the ERC by way of the Guyana Council of Churches.
In the latter days of the life of the ERC, the Guyana Council of Churches broke ranks with the ERC chairman, and a political struggle developed. The Guyana Council of Churches sought to have the Chairman removed and replaced by another nominee by the Council.
There is no clause or condition for the removal of any member on the ERC once that person has been sworn in. Yet this issue may be at the root of the debacle that is now threatening the life of the ERC.
One would believe that the days are long over when personality issues should affect national conditions. If the problem revolves around the person of the current chairman it is our view that the parties should seek to resolve this problem rather than affect the welfare of the entire country.
And in any case, the Chairman is only one person. The constitution stipulates that as many as 15 members may be appointed to the body, some of them coming from political organisations, some from trade unions, and some from religious and women's organisations.
We now know that one bone of contention is the introduction of another religious body called the Inter Religious Organisation to the list of bodies qualified to nominate people to the ERC. We also know that the Inter Religious Organisation has every intention of nominating the current ERC chairman to the commission.
This problem should not have been so major that it would threaten the life of a constitutional body.
It is imperative that our elected leaders place this country first. There is no reason for petty politics. The greater good is always more important that the personal aim or objective.