Charrandass had to be a liar and pretender to make our democracy work

Jan 07, 2019 Letters

---

Dear Editor,
The recent voting by Charrandass Persaud in favor of a no confidence motion brought about by the opposition was immediately accepted by PM Moses Nagamootoo and the entire parliament.
Shortly after, President Granger did too.
The reality of the vote that requires the resignation of the government and fresh elections in three months seems to have struck the party leaders as soon as they leave parliament. They immediately took refuge in the one place where they can hide their sorrows and put up a defense to continue to hang on to power- the Constitution.
They swathe the constitution along any conceived line of weakness and bend it to suit their own purpose in a valiant attempt to make Charrandass “YES” into a “NO”.
Fortunately! The speaker of the house did not buy it!
There was Rickford Burke, articulating article 153 which speaks of the resignation of an MP from a party list of candidates to construe that the Charrandass vote for the opposition was illegal, making the no confidence motion null and void.
Burke is alleging that the framers of the constitution had intended that MPs on a party list of candidates are compelled to vote in unison with the party lines and any vote otherwise, like Charrandass’s vote, is null and void. Surely! If that was the intent of the framers of the constitution, they would have stricken the concept of a no confidence motion from the constitution on grounds that it would be virtually impossible to yield any result. Moreover the state would have been administered by the auspice of a dictatorship. There would have been no need for a debate on any issue since any vote, not in favour or likes of the ruling party, from any of its members, would be null and void.
Parliament would be totally irrelevant –a waste of time and money in that scenario.
Nevertheless! It was always the narrow minded intent of both of the two major parties (PPP and PNC) to have it that way because together they made it possible, through legislation in parliament for a party to withdraw or dismiss an MP if it is perceived that he or she will not be in sync with the parties’ interest on an issue.
So while Charrandass was complaining of having a crisis of conscience about being a “yes man” in parliament, he should not be worried because all MPs are yes men for the whims and fancies of the political parties that put their names on the list.
They are not at liberty to have a mind of their own and let the party have knowledge of that. This is the quintessential undoing of our democracy. This is the reason Charrandass had to lie and pretend to get an opportunity to strike his blow to make our democracy work.
This should enlighten our people on how necessary it is for us to have CR. Our MPs need to be elected by popular vote in their constituencies and should not be removed by the whims and fancies of a political party but rather by popular vote in future elections.
The list system must be done with. The people must have the right to elect their MP, not a political party.
Another luminary (Nigel Hughes), enjoying the patronage of the coalition sought to throw a life line to the Coalition by delving into some form quantum mathematics to prove that 32.5 is equal to 33. In context of 33 being half of the MP’s then the total MP’s in parliament has to be 66-logics simplified. If Nigel is prepared to divide a person in two to make 32.5 as half of 65. I fail to see why another half of a person that is required to make 33 does not count as a majority, in his larger than half theory. It is funny! How political allegiance seems capable of driving even the learned into absurdity. The framers of constitutions all over the world decided on an odd number of representatives to avoid a deadlock on issues to facilitate continuity in governance structures.
The oddity of total (65) depicts that the largest numerical number (eg.33) depicts a majority in a two-way component. (eg 33+32=65). Surely! Nigel would be aware that at the AFC congress last year, Trotman won the leadership over Ramjattan by one vote-126 to 127.
Nigel would have us believe that with an election that is ok and with a no confidence motion it is different. So Nigel goes shopping for precedents to subvert the orthodoxy of the meaning of majority but refuses to shop at the British parliament, from whence our constitution evolved.
Nigel can take this one to the Bank! On the 28th March 1979, a no confidence motion was brought on the British Government of James Callaghan by opposition leader Margret Thatcher. It was passed in the house by one vote – 310 to 311.
Will the coalition continue to ride Nigel’s hot air balloon?
The speaker of the House stood tall in the eyes of the public on Thursday in parliament by not responding to the shenanigans of the coalition. The Attorney General was swift to announce his intent to go to the courts in pursuit of their so called “options.”
Going to the polls seems inevitable. The coalition would be better served channeling its energies in that direction.
Rudolph Singh

---

---