“The cursed list system”…System of nomination and selection of MPs needs to be radically overhauled - Chris Ram

“The cursed list system”…System of nomination and selection of MPs needs to be radically overhauled – Chris Ram

Oct 19, 2014 News

– “More competent, qualified and committed persons could make an immense difference in the National Assembly.”

By Kiana Wilburg
As talks of looming early general elections continue, so do the varying criticisms about the political parties. And

Chartered Accountant, Christopher Ram

the competence of most of the parliamentarians on both sides of the House is now a crucial talking point for most political critics.
Some political reviewers are of the view that the lack of militant and meaningful contributions in the National Assembly by some parliamentarians has to do with the fact that the selection process for the nomination of parliamentarians to the House by the respective political parties does not always guarantee that the “best and most competent actually makes it to the House.”
Chartered Accountant Christopher Ram in his two part analysis of A Partnership for National Unity which has a total of 26 seats in the House spoke on this “nomination process.”
In the second part of his series published in early August on his website (www.chrisram.net.com), the Attorney-at-Law believes that the reason for ineffectiveness on both sides of the aisle in the National Assembly is because of the election process of parliamentarians which he said does not look for competence or accountability from MPs.
Under the list system, Ram explained that nomination for general elections requires each party to identify a leader of the list, its presidential candidate and 65 persons. He said that the voter at that stage has no idea of the persons who will be selected from that list for nomination to the National Assembly.
“In other words the voter casts his vote not for a person but for the list and a final decision on who goes to the House rests not with the elector but with the hierarchy of the party,” he added.
Ram is of the firm belief that this system should be abolished.
The Chartered Accountant also opined that to compound the situation, “experience and ability may often prove

Opposition Leader and Chairman of the Constitutional Reform Commission, David Granger

subordinate to loyalty to the party leader.”
He said that if the Parliament is to be more effective, the existing system of nomination and selection of MPs from the list of candidates needs to be radically overhauled.
He said that the voters and the country do not receive value for money from the existing system which requires neither accountability nor representation.
“More competent, qualified and committed persons could make an immense difference in the National Assembly. We saw this vividly when persons of the caliber of Eusi Kwayana, Dr. Clive Thomas and Sheila Holder sitting as sole MP of the Working People’s Alliance in the National Assembly enhanced the quality of the debate and the polity both inside and outside of that body.
Kwayana, a non-lawyer brought more private legal actions against the agencies of the state than all the MPs on the opposition side have brought in the past 10 years. Kwayana did not need to call people out on the streets to be an effective MP, but rather did his homework and got results,” Ram said.
Ram in his analysis, said too that Opposition Leader, David Granger must accept responsibility for the failings and ineffectiveness of the MPs under his command. He said that it falls on him to assign his MPs both general and specific tasks and to ensure that they perform.
The Chartered Accountant said that Granger has the power to call on MPs to resign, or to sack them if they do not perform. But this has never been done as Granger has repeatedly told the media that he is absolutely satisfied with the performance of his parliamentarians.
Ram’s comments were recently placed before APNU’s Shadow Minister of Agriculture and the Environment, Dr. Rupert

APNU Shadow Minister of Agriculture and the Environment and member of the Constitutional Reform Commission.

Roopnaraine. Roopnaraine remains a longtime serving member on the Constitutional Reform Commission which would also examine such matters referred to by Ram.
In his assessment of Ram’s comments, Dr. Roopnaraine concluded that the Chartered Accountant provided a fair and unbiased analysis on the nomination and selection process of nominees.
“I agree that the list system promotes lack of accountability. In 1999, the Commission which was looking at the system made two recommendations to change the manner in which the lists were presented to the electorate…we went further to increase the powers and remove the alphabetical format which was to choose members based on how they were listed alphabetically on a list. There was supposed to be a proposed amendment for there to be listing done by priority but that was opposed since some persons felt that those who were not high up on such a list would not be seen in the same light of importance and not given the fair share of work to do.”
“The question of electorate reform falls under the Constitutional Reform Commission now headed by the Leader of the Opposition, Mr. Granger. The weaknesses identified by Ram have been placed before the Commission for some time now and amendments are yet to be implemented in that regard. Since 2011, the Commission has met only twice, once to elect a chairperson and the other at which we identified as experts, Mr. Haslyn Parris and the other, Dr. Harold Lutchman to work alongside the Commission.”
“The Constitutional Reform Commission really has some unique powers of its own though. But I cannot offer a reason as to why we have not returned or met as yet,” Dr. Roopnaraine explained.
This publication subsequently asked Granger when next the Commission will meet, and whether it will seek to aggressively implement the amendments to the nomination process.
To this, the Opposition leader said that there are scores of amendments before the Commission and he would have to see the text of the amendments first. He said that the Commission is currently going through them.
Asked if he believes in his estimation that there are weaknesses of the nomination process and to state why there has been a delay in the meeting of the Commission, he said, “there is a huge backlog and we agreed to a process. We agreed to appoint someone who can go through them and see what’s achievable.”
“The Commission hasn’t met much for the last 13 years and since 2001 there has not been an attempt to deal with the backlog of amendments. It’s not a new problem and this is the first time you have a non PPP member heading it. And we decided on having a technical officer that will look at it and decide which ones should be brought to the house for approval.”