Het Constitutioneel Bestel van Suriname gedurende het Militair Bestuur 1980-1987

Abstract

This dissertation reports on the research into Surinamese constitutional law during the military administration between 1980 and 1987. During this period of martial law there was neither an elected parliament nor any other form of authority with parliamentary legitimacy in Suriname. The research into the military administration is predominantly normative research into the formal constitutional arrangement of the Surinamese state during the 1980-1987 era. During the military period, historically developed principles and requirements of the rule of law and democracy were discarded either completely or in part, with some being completely absent and others remaining intact. This turnaround also brought about a fundamental change in the administrative structure and laws of Suriname. In addition, new legal institutions were added to the judicial system.During this period, the then ruling political powers argued that Suriname remained a constitutional democracy and that martial law was only a necessity under the circumstances. To assess to what extent there was democratic rule as well as the justification of the use of martial law, a study was conducted into the theoretics of constitutional democracy and martial law. States often are described as constitutional democracies; however, around the world there are differences as regards to what extent. To measure the degree of democracy, it is tested against internationally recognized frameworks enshrined in international conventions, treaties and doctrines. Theories on the subject of the constitutional democracy and martial law have been developed and fine-tuned over the years. In this research, such theories were applied in order to answer the main question as well as the key questions:How was the setup of the Trias Politica during the 1980 – 1987 military administration?Based on the main question key questions were formulated, namely: 1.How were the three powers arranged?2.What authorities were bestowed upon them?3.How did the three powers relate to each other?4.To what extent did the three powers and the governance as a whole comply with the requirements of a constitutional democracy and those of objective martial law? This study exposes the complexities of the executive, legislative and judiciary powers during the military era. Both the executive and legislative powers, but also areas of judiciary powers either directly or indirectly came under the Military Authority. Both the arrangement and population of governance and state structures, as well as the balances of power and control, were continuously changed during the military regime of seven years. These changes are clearly noticeable in the ratification and countersigning of the decrees adopting binding regulations.During the military era, state powers were predominantly arranged by decree. These binding decrees would be signed by or on behalf of the president and the Military Authority and countersigned by the Military Authority and ministers. During this seven-year period, enormous pressure was exerted on the Military Authority from across society, such as through the unions and the business community. Union members and members of the business community were given administrative and regulatory functions in 1985. An Appointed Assembly with legislative powers was formed, composed of members of the unions and the business community as well as members appointed by the military. This was a collaboration between the military, the unions and businesses aimed at kick starting a democracy. During this period, the old political parties were engaged with and together they contributed to the formulation of a new Constitution.This Constitution was approved by referendum on 30 September 1987. Subsequently, Parliamentary elections were held on 25 November 1987 and, after seven years of military administration, Suriname had a civilian government.