Copyright stabroeknews
Dear Editor, The electorate’s decision to grant the People’s Progressive Party/Civic (PPP/C) a second term in office offers two important lessons — both illuminated by the recent developments in the judiciary, as reported in Stabroek News’s article titled `Judicial quandary following return of Justice Cummings from leave.’ The first lesson is that the electorate rewarded continuity and delivery. Voters appear to have endorsed the PPP/C’s record in governance — from infrastructure and education to social development and economic growth — as evidence of steady progress. In a rapidly changing Guyana, buoyed by the expanding oil economy, people clearly value consistency, performance, and visible results. Their message was simple: stay the course and keep delivering. Yet, while the electorate reaffirmed its trust in continuity at the political level, Stabroek News’s reporting reveals troubling instability within the judiciary — the very institution that underpins the rule of law. The uncertainty surrounding Chancellor Yonette Cummings’s return from leave, and the question of how senior judicial offices were managed during her absence, reflected a breakdown in established procedures. That unease has now been intensified by the sudden retirement of Chancellor Cummings, an event that has left the judiciary’s leadership unsettled. At a time when the courts should project confidence and coherence, this abrupt development risks deepening public concern about transparency and institutional order. The second lesson from the electorate’s verdict is that development must be accompanied by integrity and respect for institutions. The Guyanese voter of today — especially among the younger generation — is less bound by political tradition and more guided by expectations of fairness, accountability, and the consistent application of law. Infrastructure and economic projects are important, but they cannot substitute for the moral and institutional foundations that make governance trustworthy. The confusion over judicial leadership, culminating in the Chancellor’s unexpected departure, raises the urgent question of how seriously we are safeguarding those foundations. Globally, this lesson resonates. For instance, when South Africa experienced uncertainty over the leadership of its Constitutional Court in the early 2010s, public trust in judicial independence was shaken despite the country’s democratic continuity. The lesson is clear: political stability alone cannot guarantee public confidence; institutional stability and adherence to established norms are equally vital. The PPP/C’s renewed mandate brings both promise and responsibility. Having been re-elected on the strength of its performance, the government must ensure that the country’s institutions — including the judiciary — are stable, transparent, and free from the perception of political or administrative interference. Continuity in office must translate into continuity of principle. In the end, the electorate has spoken clearly. It wants progress, but not at the expense of order. It wants leadership, but also legitimacy. The sudden retirement of Chancellor Cummings is more than a personnel matter — it is a reminder that the rule of law must remain firm even as the country moves forward. True continuity, the kind voters endorsed, depends on it. Keith Bernard
