Democracy must be protected even from oversight
Kaieteur News – There was more reason why Democrats wanted to impeach Donald Trump. After the rebellion at the Capitol, there were calls for Trump to be removed from office immediately.
But behind the impeachment case, which failed to secure a conviction in the Senate, there was a bigger case: Democrats and some Republicans wanted to make sure he could never run for office again. An impeachment would have sealed her fate.
The move was criticized to ensure Trump could never run again to his position as undemocratic. It has been said that democracy cannot be free unless all interested candidates are free to decide whether to run for office.
This is the foundation that the Lima Group, including Guyana under the APNU + AFC, had chosen not to recognize Maduro as President of Venezuela despite winning fair elections. The Lima Group and the American Provinces Organization insist that recent elections in Venezuela were not free because of the Opposition’s lack of participation. They do not argue that these opinion polls have been rigged.
Trump was not convicted and so Congress could not prevent him from holding public office again. One Constitutional office, however, feels that Trump can still be disbarred if it is established that he is part of a rebellion against the State. Capitol storms Commission of Inquiry.
Trump has faced penalties, including from his home state, as a result of the incident. And the pressure is mounting on him, all with the aim of making him an example and to ensure his political career ends. The ultimate intention is to disqualify him from competing in the 2024 elections.
But what about Guyana? The question was asked, given the actions of APNU + AFC, that the coalition should not be barred from contesting democratic elections.
A strong moral case exists. It was clear that the APNU + AFC intended to benefit from the shenanigans which included an attempt to impose fake results on the electorate. APNU + AFC convinced the majority of the population that it was not prepared to play by the rules and that it intended to win victory despite losing the elections.
A group like this should not have a place in democratic politics. But ironically, the very democratic debate can be used to argue that, regardless of APNU + AFC’s moral credentials, and however much it tried to cheat its way back to political office, it would violate democratic norms for the APNU + AFC to be disqualified from taking part in the job.
Some might argue why this should be so? After all no right is absolute, and the democratic right to participate in elections should be surrounded by the duty to play by the rules.
If a boxer does not play by the rules and strikes under the belt and does this deliberately and repeatedly, that boxer can be suspended. If you cheat in sports, you can be banned for life. So what prevents the application of this same principle to politics? Why shouldn’t a political party taking part in a deliberate attempt to defraud an election be banned from contesting future elections.
One argument for banning rogue parties and grouping is that even democracy must be defended. It cannot be left to the mercy of political extremists and vagrants, including those who supported and deceived the fraudsters.
This country was held to ransom for five months while there was a fierce attempt to steal the elections. He was so rude that there was a plan to devise results, and then later, to arbitrarily disqualify valid votes.
So why then should anyone have difficulty insisting that the APNU + AFC be permanently disqualified from holding political office. Well, one reason to oppose this course of action is that, regardless of the compelling evidence that already exists, and which leaves little doubt as to what was going on, due process is needed. Otherwise, the arguments become an arbitrary exercise.
This is why there should be no further delay in establishing a credible international commission of inquiry. Once that commission is established and its findings are published, then the necessary steps can be taken to move a constitutional amendment, which would effectively allow for the legal sanctions against those who attempt a coup against democracy.
This is why this column will continue to insist that everyone involved in the rigging of the elections must face the penalty of the court. And ensuring that the guilty are punished would be far better justice than arbitrarily prohibiting the APNU + AFC from participating in a future election.
Unfortunately, the PPP / C has become a blast party. It has made no provision in this year’s Budget for establishing such a commission to investigate electoral mandate.
(The views expressed in this article are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of this newspaper.)