Giving permanent foreign Guyanese the right to vote is morally horrible

Feb 14, 2010 Features / Columnists, Freddie Kissoon

I pay my taxes. I have only worked in one place my whole life in Guyana – UG. My wife and I took our life’s savings and I bought a house only three years ago.
That means I bought a house in my 20th year of working at UG. My car, a Toyota RAV 4, would never have been driven if I didn’t get it duty free. Not satisfied that I pay my income tax, the GRA wrote Kaieteur News twice demanding to know if I am paid and how much.
Then it commanded that I file property tax for the past eight years. So I am a taxpayer who should have a right to decide how my government behaves because it uses my tax dollar.
Why should hundreds of thousands of persons outside of this country (I don’t care if they are Guyana-born or Caribbean citizens) who have not blessed this country with a cent towards UG’s restoration, school rehabilitation, hospital reconstruction, road repair, agricultural development, decide who become our lawmakers?
It gets indecent when you think that many, many of these permanently based overseas Guyanese have not been back to this country in decades, have no interest in returning, have no willingness to contribute financially to the development of this territory and would never send their children to school here, but have the right to determine who rule us in this land.
It gets even more indecent when you think that some of these people hold down fantastic jobs paying fantastic salaries, their children attend top class high schools and highly rated universities, receive the best medical attention the world can offer and engage in cruise ship holidays and they have the right to pick the people who will govern this country. This is the perspective we have to use in any argument about voting rights for overseas Guyanese. My opinion is that Guyanese will never accept the reintroduction of foreign voting, but at least the immoral dimensions of the process need to be explained.
The arguments have deeply philosophical points that need to be highlighted. On the superficial level, think of what it means morally that a large group of people who live outside a territory decides on its leadership.
The philosophical answers go back more than 2000 years ago with the publication of the first book on philosophy in the western world – Plato’s The Republic.
The entire text is devoted to the search for justice, and in that pursuit, Plato comes up with classes and their entitlements.
He stratifies classes and on that judgement he outlines their entitlement based on the nature of their contribution to the DEMOS (ancient Greek word for community). But in the treatment of classes, Plato assigns a role for each class in the final determination of the shape of the DEMOS.
If this country should allow permanently based foreign Guyanese to vote in national elections then the shape of the DEMOS comes about from people who have no relation to the DEMOS.
This is contrary to the fundamental principles of justice as defined by Plato in his historic work.
One foolish – and I mean really foolish – explanation for the reintroduction of voting rights for Guyanese who are domiciled as residents in other countries, is that the U.S. has it and India will soon have it. But that is America’s and India’s business.
If we find these practices of the U.S. and India of superior value then we should adopt immediately the other superior values these two countries have.
Let us start with retirement age. In both countries, it is 65. In Guyana it is 55. In both countries, Supreme Court judges have no retirement age. In India, High Court and Supreme Court judges cannot be employed by private companies after they leave the Bench. In both countries, there are perhaps millions of private radio stations.
In the U.S., the Freedom of Information Act is more than thirty years old. In both countries, practicing politicians cannot hold official positions in the civil service.
In Guyana, three Permanent Secretaries are practicing politicians from the ruling party. In India, there is an Ombudsman and a Human Rights Commission.
In both countries, the Elections Council consists of independent personnel and not party members.
In Guyana, six of the seven members of the Commission are politicians. In the U.S., there is the office of the Special Prosecutor.
He has independent power and does not answer to the FBI or Cabinet Ministers. He can prosecute the President if he finds incriminating evidence. If we like what other countries offer why don’t we start copying these wonderful things, not overseas voting alone.

Latest News

Giving permanent foreign Guyanese the right to vote is morally horrible

Related

Similar Articles

The Glenn Lall Show | November, 20th, 2024

Follow on Tik Tok @Glennlall

THE BLUNT OF THE DAY

Sports

Diamond Mineral Water Indoor Hockey Festival returns for 19th edition

Louis 97, Athanaze 90 give West Indies slight...

Vladimir Woodroofe backs out of World...

Exciting Double-header bowls off today with...

YMCA and Hard Knocks battle for Futsal supremacy...

Sukhwa delighted to score most runs at GCB...

Features/Columnists

Jagdeo’s idea of transparency

Rising Gun Crimes in the Caribbean: Urgent Action required by all

Welcome, Mr. PM

Publisher’s Note

Weekend Cartoon

Bridge Watch

Demerara Harbour Bridge

> Berbice Bridge […]

Giving permanent foreign Guyanese the right to vote is morally horrible

Share this:

Related

Similar Articles

The Glenn Lall Show | November, 20th, 2024

Follow on Tik Tok @Glennlall

THE BLUNT OF THE DAY

Sports

Features/Columnists

Publisher’s Note

Weekend Cartoon

Bridge Watch

Demerara Harbour Bridge

> Berbice Bridge […]