Latest update April 6th, 2025 6:33 AM
Latest News
- High Court bars GRA from seizing Team Mohamed’s luxury vehicles
- Oil spill will hit Guyana’s shores before capping stack arrives to plug leak
- UN says 100 children killed or injured in Gaza every day since war resumed
- Guyana received US$605M oil money in first quarter of 2025
- ‘Tariff war’ spells grave danger for the Region – CARICOM Chair Mottley
Charrandass’s vote is disdainful of the conscience of other Guyanese
Dear Editor,
By now, we are all aware of Mr Charrandass Persaud’s reasons for his “vote of conscience” on the no-confidence motion. It is puzzling, therefore, why he did not exercise the options of resigning from his party beforehand or even abstaining from voting. He instead chose to pull off the most repugnant and undemocratic political act in decades in Guyana.
Ours is a representative democracy. Despite its several defects, the people have certain expectations of their MPs. One expectation surrounds the conscience vote. In any circumstance, we expect an MP to be open upfront should he or she plan to vote conscience. This openness becomes an absolute necessity for a vote on a no-confidence motion.
For the no-confidence motion is like no bill or other parliamentary motion. It carries the highest possible political stakes. A government survives or falls by it. An MP, therefore, cannot view it in the same light as a parliamentary bill or even as the national budget. A vote on a no-confidence motion is the highest possible act of representation.
In other words, it most demands the need for representativeness, for the input of the represented. It implicates, more than anything other vote, the interest and destiny of every single Guyanese. It is the one vote where the personal conscience of the MP is irrelevant or least relevant. It is only the conscience of those who he represents that matters.
Charrandass Persaud woke up one morning and decided that my vote and conscience and those of hundreds of thousands of other Guyanese did not matter. He chose not to discuss his concerns with us beforehand. He chose not to resign beforehand or abstain. Instead, he chose to disdainfully treat us like nothing.
Sherwood Lowe
Similar Articles
THE BLUNT OF THE DAY
Sports
Features/Columnists
This must not be our hour of humiliation
Peeping Tom… Kaieteur News- There are moments in the history of nations when fate lays before them a choice not of... more
The U.S. “Joining” the Commonwealth: an unreasonable expectation
By Sir Ronald Sanders Kaieteur News- Recent media stories have suggested that King Charles III could “invite” the United... more
Weekend Cartoon
