Non resident Guyanese should not have the right to vote in Guyana

Feb 19, 2010 Letters

---

Dear Editor,
I am very selective in how I respond to issues in the press, but with great restraint I respond to an irresponsible missive of one Shawn Mangru by way of his letter of February 17, 2010 in the SN captioned, “Overseas-based Guyanese……”. I have not seen such reckless and irresponsible thought in a long time and I hope this adventure is put to rest once and for all.
What constitutional right should we overseas-based Guyanese have? No one placed a gun to our head and say we must leave Guyana. Most of us left by choice in pursuit of a better life and greater opportunity and if we are so interested in voting in the Guyanese election we are duty bound to book the next ticket to Georgetown and live there?
The old people say you cannot blow whistle and suck cane at the same time. In politics, you cannot vote for Obama and Ramotar, Trotman or Corbin at the same time. You must as a matter of principle choose your home state and where ever you choose, you must ethically live with your choice.
If we Non Resident Guyanese (NRG) are Guyanese to the core, then we must make that core Guyanese decision and go back home. I respect that most Guyanese choose to live abroad for their children’s sake but then these societies grow on you and you make that conscious decision to not go back to Guyana because of the economic acceleration that living in New York City provides. It is a choice and once that choice is made, you have to bear the responsibility of losing the right to vote in Guyana and vote for Mayor Bloomberg instead.
Thus this irresponsible dialogue of what the constitution says and what the laws say, is at minimum adventurism and destructive.  The principle remains if you want to vote in Guyana, then make that choice and live in Guyana. You cannot have the best of both worlds.
Guyanese to the core is a term used by Mr. Mangru based on emotions with no foundation is common sense. The right to vote is a very sacred right that requires sacrifice. The mere fact that one foregoes an opportunity to live in New York City preserves his right to vote in the Guyanese elections if he chooses to live in Guyana. Leslie Rammsammy is an American who choose to live and work in Guyana and he deserve to vote in Guyana, but Sasenarine Singh who choose to live out of Guyana at this point in time does not deserve to vote in the 2011 Guyanese elections. I will exercise that right when I re-migrate to Guyana, but until then, I have lost that right. I can comment on Guyanese politics but I cannot vote in Guyanese elections until I exercise that right to live in Guyana.
Why should a New Yorker have that right to vote in Guyana when he or she is not willing to experience the economic sacrifice that a resident of Berbice has to endure? With sacrifice come rights. If you give up the responsibility to endure the economic burden of living in Guyana, then you should not share the rights of voting in the Guyanese elections.
Who give a hoot how much the NRG remits to Guyana? It is not a fait accompli, it is a choice decision. I have remitted several hundreds of pounds for a variety of issues in 2009 including charity but it was never a burden or by force, it was always by choice so how does that give me a right to vote in the Guyanese elections. Mr. Mangru’s logic defies common sense.
I actually congratulate the Guyanese man and woman who have endure the burden and stress of living in Guyana and wish them well in their next vote, but I do not envy them, they have earned that right to vote by forgoing economic wealth and opportunity that I have access to by living in a developed country.
If the constitution is designed this way, then it should be changed to ensure that one man one vote, once you are resident in Guyana.
I do not know where Mr. Mangru lives, but thousands of Guyanese have made Richmond Hill their home and their children are not Guyanese, they are American and they live the American dream and thus why should they get the right to vote in an alien country – Guyana. It is like asking me to vote in the next Indian election but India is a very alien country to me, at least this is how I felt about that country when I visited it.
So to the Mangrus of this world stop this nonsense and focus on our environment, contribute to Guyana, if we so love it but do not demand rights that we should not have since it is nothing else than robbery and rape. NRG should not have the right to vote in Guyana and if the constitution spells this out, then it clearly demonstrates we have not adequately reformed Burnham’s constitution.
Chills runs up my spine to fathom the thought that horse and donkey in Kent or Cheshire in the UK will be voting in a Guyanese elections again, like they did in 1980.
In closing to put this silly argument of Mangru to rest, if Guyanese really want to be real stakeholders in their land of their birth, then they can legally secure this right by re-migrating to Guyana, full stop. Guyana will be worst off if we allow NRG to vote in the next Guyanese elections since these people will not have to endure the burden of living in Guyana but will have the benefit of voting in the Guyanese elections. It just does not add up.
I am disappointed that this destructive seed was planted but we must nip this recklessness in the bud once and for all.
Sasenarine Singh

---

---