Guyana's complex constitutional history provides a useful means of understanding the conflict between local interests and those of Britain, the long-time colonial power.
The colony's first governing document, the Concept Plan of Redress, was promulgated under Dutch rule in 1792 and remained in effect with modifications under British administration until 1928.
Reforms throughout the 19th century gradually broadened the electoral franchise and lessened the power of the planters in the colonial government.
The success of self-proclaimed Marxist-Leninist Cheddi Jagan and his leftist People's Progressive Party (PPP) in the April 1953 elections frightened the colonial authorities.
The prime minister, who was chosen by the party with a majority of votes in the Legislative Assembly, held the most powerful executive post.
In an effort to quell the unrest, the British colonial secretary declared a state of emergency and proposed modifying the constitution to provide for a unicameral fifty-three-member House of Assembly and proportional representation.
Not until a constitutional amendment was enacted empowering the governor to dismiss the House of Assembly was the old government removed from power.
The titular head of the country was the British monarch, represented in Guyana by the governor general, who served in a largely ceremonial capacity.
The government argued that the country's many resources had been controlled by foreign capitalists and that organizing the population into cooperatives would provide the best path to development.
[7] As Burnham consolidated his control over Guyanese politics throughout the 1970s, he began to push for changes in the constitution that would muffle opposition.
By the late 1970s, the government and the legislature were PNC-dominated, and the party had declared its hegemony over the civil service, the military, the judiciary, the economic sector, and all other segments of Guyanese society.
He decried the 1966 constitution as a capitalist document that supported a national economy based on exports and the laws of supply and demand.
He argued that the constitution safeguarded the acquisitions of the rich and privileged and did not significantly advance the role of the people in the political process.
However, freedom of expression and other political rights are limited by national interests and the state's duty to ensure fairness in the dissemination of information to the public.
The call for nationalization of major industries with just compensation was a moot point, given that 80 percent of the economy was already in the government's hands by 1976.