Skip to main content

Reply to "Granger wants “review” on Cummingsburg Accord breach"

Originally Posted by Kari:
Originally Posted by Zed:
Originally Posted by asj:

And so it would seems as if Granger Dictatorial Pattern Continues..........

Many people voted for the coalition because off the accord limiting the dictatorial tendencies of the pnc and that Moses will be given power over internal affairs. Both parties knew that the constitution gave supremacy to the president but he could designate. Now, their statement  raises concerns for me. Is Moses Granger's "French poodle"? Moses might not be concerned, but I am. Others are also. It seems that Moses is being sidelined. His appearance in the press is very minimal and it seems, at least to me that Harmon and Granger are running the show. Is the Accord worth the paper it is written on? Moses got the VP and PM jobs. Was it just the titles he wanted? To me, his current position seems to have no substance. Did they lie to us, the Guyanese people who are the electorate? Who is giving direction to Harmon? Moses or Granger? Or both of them? Who gives direction to the other ministers? Who is setting the priority for internal affairs? (No, I am not a "PPP hack").

Zed, those who voted for the APNU-AFC coalition did so for one primary reason - to have a change of governance from one of corruption to one of transparency and racial unity.

 

The legal minds in both parties must have known that if some parts of the Cummingsburg Accord were in contravention to the articles and spirit of the Constitution, then they must have had two things in mind - bring constitutional changes to a vote work around these.

 

The measure of the coalition's success is in the implementation of the programs they campaigned on. Time will provide us with the answers. However, there is no dispute that the optics of the change have so far been positive, and no politician or partners have been shoved aside. It is not even worth lending credence to wild talk about dictatorial tendencies. The body of your comment is unadulterated speculation that strains sensible discourse.

Kari, thanks for your response. First, I do agree that time will give us an answer. However, this is not just an intellectual exercise for me because I live in Guyana and the results of their acts of commission and omission will directly affect me both in the short term and in the long term, not so for some who are sitting abroad and pontificating. Time is thus of essence. Second, I asked some questions which I think are relevant to the operation of the accord and the answers to which are important to deciding if the accord is being adhered to. Please read the local press and then decide who is really running internal affairs. Third, many people wanted change, but voted for the alliance only because the AFC and Moses would have had a particular role in the government. This is anecdotal evidence, but that is all we all have. Fourth, I guess that you are correct, that 28 years of dictatorship and not even accepting that there was rigging is no enough evidence of a tendency.fifth, I would support your statement that the legal minds of both parties knew that some parts of the accord would contravene the constitution. But my view is that the accord should hold primany in those areas that they agreed on until such time that the constitutional change process works out what the new power relationships will be. It will be disingenious for anyone to say they cannot stick to the terms of the accord because it is not in accordance to the constitution. Sixth, it is evident from the results of the election that nearly half of the electorates have their own ipionion on what the election was all about, even though you or I might disagree with them. Seven, thanks for the response because, it allows me to have a better feel of how many actors, stakeholders, etc, view issues in Guyana.

Z
×
×
×
×
×
×