Latest update April 19th, 2026 12:46 AM
Latest News
- Exxon quietly investing Guyana’s profits into Stabroek Block while country patiently awaiting increased earnings – Ram
- African nations tightening grip on mineral wealth
- Iran fully closes Strait of Hormuz over U.S. blockade and fires on ships
- Optique Vision Care opens Guyana’s first specialty Eye Hospital
- Exxon and partners profits soar to US$29B in 5 years while Guyana received US$5.4B in 50/50 partnership
The PPP is being deceptive and selective on proportionality
DEAR EDITOR,
The PPP has, since the results of the last elections, discovered the virtues of proportionality. It’s their new mantra. They placed it at the top of the tripartite agenda. They have now asked the court to pronounce on allocation of seats on the parliamentary committees. So far so good. The problem is that the PPP is being deceptive and selective on the issue.
Here is the deception. President Ramotar is reported in the Stabroek News (March 21, 2012) as saying, in reference to the equal number of seats allocated to the PPP and APNU, that 49% cannot be equal to 40%. He is correct. But to make their argument the PPP has, not so cleverly, shifted the problem between them and APNU.
The issue, however, is not one between the PPP and APNU; it’s between the PPP and the Joint Opposition. In this regard, the PPP’s 49% cannot be equal to the Joint Opposition’s 51%. Yet the PPP wants the same number of seats as the Joint Opposition. But the PPP cannot have the same number of seats as the Joint Opposition—the latter got more votes and seats than the former. Any Standard One pupil should be able to know that.
Now to the PPP’s selectiveness. The PPP won 49% of the votes but controls 100% of the cabinet. Why doesn’t the PPP include that scenario in their discourse on proportionality? If there is an abuse of the principle of proportionality, that’s it. If the present cabinet were appointed using the principle of proportionality the PPP and the Joint Opposition would be entitled to 9 and 11 cabinet seats respectively.
The PPP’s apologists would, no doubt, say the rules permit the PPP to have 100% of the cabinet. The rules also permit the Joint Opposition to have a majority of the parliamentary committees and all the leading offices. However, the PPP wants to change the rules for the parliament but not for the cabinet. That is a clear indication of the PPP’s dictatorial mindset; they are bent on domination at all cost.
In the circumstances, the Opposition should move to the court with a counter motion challenging the composition of the cabinet as a violation of Article 13 of the constitution. Such a motion would have more merit than the one brought by the Attorney General on behalf of the PPP.
David Hinds
Share this:
Discover more from Kaieteur News
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.