Political parties should ensure that voters’ rights are respected

Feb 05, 2019 Letters

Dear Editor,

I believe that it would be a grave error to consider the developments surrounding the No-confidence Motion in the National Assembly as primarily a constitutional matter necessitating a legal solution.
The architects of the No-Confidence Motion, I am convinced, clearly understood that this was, first and foremost, a political, financial and national security conspiracy cloaked in the guise of constitutionality.
The minority PPP/C, which by definition, cannot prevail in a No-Confidence Motion, nevertheless moves such a motion and demands a roll call and floor vote; a Member of Parliament from the majority, governing party, Charrandass Persaud, votes with the minority (PPP/C) party in a power grab or coup d’état to force the overthrow of the government or at a minimum to create political instability, even a national crisis.
Chief Justice Roxane George-Wiltshire in her ruling on January 31, 2019 found that his vote was valid even though he was not qualified to be a member of the National Assembly on the basis of his dual citizenship and his allegiance to Canada.
The Attorney-General has indicated that the government will appeal this ruling as surely it must. The question I ask is what constitutional provision(s) permitted Charrandass Persaud to vote against the Party List from which his name was extracted? Put another way, does the vote belong to Charrandass Persaud, or any other M.P, to do as they wish?
The other 64 M.Ps voted with, and for, the Party Lists from which their names were extracted. The thousands of voters that voted for the APNU/AFC List from which Charrandass Persaud’s name was extracted did not petition him, or give their consent for him to vote against the party to which they gave their support in the last elections.
There is no evidence that he was motivated by decency or conscience; he did not resign but continued to sit with the ruling party in order to betray the voters he swore to represent, presumably because of the lure of molasses.
His right and ability to do so is apparently protected by the Constitution but not the rights of the thousands who voted for the APNU/AFC List. It would appear that the right to vote is not as fundamental as one might have imagined.
Given the Chief Justice’s ruling that Charrandass Persaud’s vote against his Party is valid what would, in the future, prevent any, or several M.P.s from voting with the opposite party. This would make a mockery of elections as any majority government, whether one seat or ten, can potentially be overthrown or destabilized by one, or any number of M.Ps who can be persuaded to vote against their party by those having the ability to offer inducements, whether commodities sweeter than molasses or more valuable than gold.
This forces me to review my understanding of elections and democracy in my country. My vote and that of every voter, no longer will represent political preferences but merely a transfer of our rights to 65 M.P.s to do with as they may.
Articles 156 (3) and 160 (2) (a) of the Guyana Constitution seem to be inadequate protection against the conspiracies and treachery of the architects of the No-Confidence Motion of Dec 21, 2018 and so I urge every voter, as the clamour for rushed, hardly credible, free or fair elections escalates, to demand from the parties of the coalition government, and every party intending to participate in the coming elections, how they will ensure that the vote of every voter is respected and whether there should be meaningful discussions regarding constitutional reform before the next elections.

Sincerely
Oscar Dolphin

Discover more from Kaieteur News

Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.

Latest News