Ayoo hear that pot solt write bout abie Anil, abie Shaha/burnham constitution. Since when he a law man. He a kanta economis.
Mr TK
Anil, you know the Herdmanston Accord did not address that big elephant in the room? How do you deal with the result of pro-ethnic strategic voting? Is it morally justified for a party to run the affairs of a country when that party derives its core support from mainly one ethnicity? There are some serious problems with this tinkered 1980 Burnham Constitution. I have always used the word tinkered because the changes inspired by the Herdmanston Accord (HA) did not address the fundamental problem of strategic pro-ethnic voting by mainly East Indians and Afro-Guyanese. The HA came about because of a shake down of the PPP through violence and destabilization, as you pointed out, not so much because Dr Jagan wanted fundamental changes to the constitution. What are some of the fundamentals? The dominance of the list system, pre-election alliance instead of post-election alliance, the less than 51% needed for winning Presidency such as in 2011, the list system still dominates the geographic representation in Parliament, meaning the President determines who becomes the geographic MPs. There is still too much powers in the President. However, I take your point that some progress was made here. There are others as I have outlined in several columns and letters over the years, so I will not repeat them. Take for example the contract signed by ExxonMobil, a constitution promoting cohesion would make sure all the parties had a say in negotiating the contract. I am sure you would have received better terms than 2% royalty, 50/50 profit share no matter the market price and US$18 mill bonus.