How do we as a nation learn and develop from the no-confidence vote?

Dec 23, 2018 Eye on Guyana with Lincoln Lewis, Features / Columnists

---

The change in dynamics of our current body politics is rooted in the 1998 St. Lucia Statement, which instituted a three-year life to the PPP/C Government led by Janet Jagan. The High Court later (2001) ruled, based on a petition brought before it, that the requirement to cast a ballot in the 1997 General and Regional Elections (GRE) was unconstitutional, and vitiated that elections.
The 2011 GRE saw the Opposition with its plurality having greater leverage to hold the Donald Ramotar Government to account. This leverage also saw the Opposition’s submission of a no-confidence motion based on the considered view that the government was violating Articles 217-220 of the Guyana Constitution with regards to the authority to spend.
In an effort to avoid the debate, the Ramotar Government prorogued the National Assembly, the nation went to early elections, which resulted in the administration’s removal from office after three years.
Last Friday, the Opposition PPP/C, together with one Member of Parliament from APNU+AFC, took a decision to bring the life of the Coalition Government to an end, after three years in office. These are real dynamics that the society must begin to come to grips with, since they are provided for under the Constitution.
At the same time, questions need to be asked of our lawmakers if their decisions are not consistent with the spirit and intent of what is considered a representative democracy, which under-girds our parliamentary system/legislative branch. When one is elected to office, he/she represents the will and desires of the people who voted for him/her. Ipso facto, decisions that are being made should not only have the support of the constituency, but should also be to the constituency’s interest and the good of the nation.
Friday’s no-confidence vote brings into question the role of Charrandass Persaud of the AFC, a partner in the Coalition – as to whether his action was consistent with the party and constituency he represents. Evidently, from the response of his colleagues on the Government side, it was not.
Our political culture over the years reflects that very few persons can participate in a General or Regional Election, outside of the main political forces, and acquire a seat. Hence, it is reasonable to conclude that the seat and influence exhibited by Persaud, are those of the coalition. In normal circumstances, his decision to vote with the Opposition, particularly when not granted to vote independently, would be seen by many as betrayal of the trust of the coalition and electorate. This is even more so given the understanding that the coalition’s parliamentarians were instructed to vote with the coalition’s position.
Charrandass would like the public to believe that he voted as an independent thinker with a clear conscience, to cast the deciding vote to bring an end to a government that he was entrusted to uplift and act in the best interest of. If we are to accept what he says as true, then we must do so understanding the impact and likely consequences of such independence. How does this impact constituents and the party that placed them in parliament? One also cannot overlook the impact that his action will have on race and race relations, however negligible it may appear to be.
Further impact lies in the possibility of political parties striving harder and putting in place certain systems to exert control over parliamentarians. Outside of these, the nation can benefit as a whole by amending its laws, so that a constituency system is put in existence, which would dictate that those who hold office, work to win the hearts and votes of the electorate.
Whatever the response, the most important issue that confronts us is how we as a nation learn and develop from this experience and remain united as One People, with One Nation and One Destiny. As we go forward, no doubt society will review whether reducing the life of government or taking independent/conscience votes really translate to meaningful empowerment of the masses the politicians are elected to represent and serve. Have the people’s welfare; their right to self-determination and opportunities of development, peaceful co-existence and harmony been made better by these actions?
The 1980 Guyana Constitution makes provision for Regional Government, but outside of the implementation of Central Government’s role and responsibility (Article 77) when this tier was instituted, successive administrations have failed to put legislation in place to secure its autonomy, consistent with Article 76, which stands to allow the people’s empowerment at a more direct level.
At a national level, Article 13, the “Objective of political system,” was conceptualised, developed and legislated while both the Leader of the Opposition and Leader of the Government Business in the House were members of a Government with the parliamentary majority.
But to date, not one piece of legislation has been put in place to give life to this article, even as it expressly requires the management of the state sees participation and involvement in the decision-making processes by groups and individuals on matters that directly impact their well-being. Yet every day we hear the call for shared-governance, government of national unity, or some such nice-sounding phrase thrown together without any effort to make same real, based on existing constitutional provisions.
There have been very little serious efforts within recent years to change the political management of the nation in a more progressive direction. And by this I do not mean groups – political or civic – coming together under any single umbrella, because thus far, such has proven more effort is being spent fighting to share the spoils of who gets what or who must toe the line, rather than laws, policies and programmes that can resound to the collective good.
As this nation is about to face another early elections which would have impact on government expenditures, public sector workers, teachers, public servants and the disciplined services continue to struggle to make ends meet given the salaries they receive. Increase in dollars cannot ignore the application of real wage, which is measured by inflation and cost for the basic goods and services.
At the same time, it is opportune to caution that the while the Constitution requires elections within three months – Article 160 (6) – the role of GECOM meeting administrative and other logistical requirements under the Representation of the People Act, Clause 106(7) cannot be ignored. What in effect we have is a window within which elections must be conducted, and again, the requirement for shared involvement by Members of the National Assembly, should it be required to go outside the three months. This is another aspect of shared/inclusionary governance.
To continue to do the same thing over and over again and expect different results is seen as foolish. Guyanese historically are not fools and are known to be smart. What happened last Friday must result in development and political maturity, and given that politicians seem reluctant to go there, the people must take them there, even if it means kicking and screaming. We are in serious times, which require of us putting the national good over partisan interest.
Fellow Guyanese, we the people – including the trade unions, private sector organisations and civil society – must come together and demand that the constitutional requirements to empower the regional system (Article 76), and bring an inclusionary, progressive approach to governance (Article 13), be given real meaning through legislation. All these must be done before going to the next elections. There is enough time to get it done, and the politicians must prove to us that they are serious about the management of country and its business, and not self-aggrandisement.

---

---