“Sovereignty belongs to the people.” It died a second death in 2007

Feb 28, 2019 Letters

---

DEAR EDITOR,
I would like to respond to an article, “Mr Persaud cannot deliberately disregard his serious ethical responsibility“ by a Fitz Alert, in KN Feb. 16th. Mr Alert stated that, ”The electors who ensured Mr. Persaud’s party got 33 seats in the National Assembly cast their votes with the expectation, naturally, that Mr. Persaud would faithfully represent their interests, through the Party for which those electors voted.”
What Mr Alert does not know or would not admit, is that very often “electors” often have a change of heart when a Government fails to meet its perceived “expectations”. Mr. Alert should be aware that the coalition did not score well in fulfillment of promises – nothing destroys expectation like broken promises. It induces a feeling of being cheated.
It is on this premise that the “vote of confidence“ had been conceptualized and inserted by framers of constitutions around the world. It is designed to give the representatives of the people (MPs) the opportunity to show their disdain for governments, whose policies are not in sync with the people’s interest.
In our scenario, a No Confidence Motion is the only opportunity they have to stand with a mind of their own in parliament, given the sword of “recall“ held by the parties’ list, over their heads.
Article 9 of our constitution clearly states,” Sovereignty belongs to the people, who exercise it through their representatives and the democratic organs established by or under this Constitution.”
Who would “their representatives “be? Undoubtedly, the parliamentarians! Article 9 clearly gives Charrandass or any parliamentarian the right to represent his constituency as he or she sees it fit.
There is no article in the constitution that conflicts article 9 more than article 156.3.c. While article 9 gives the MPs (the people’s representatives) the right to take care of the people’s sovereignty, article 156.3.c took that right from the MPs and gave it to the beasts (political parties) and all the people’s representatives became “yes men” because of allegiance to the party.
This is the reason the people are being cast aside by Governments after every election. Article 156.3.c. made the interest of the parties paramount to the people’s interest.
In our scenario, the representatives of the people (MPs) finds themselves obligated to their respective party list instead of the people. Does this in any way reflect that sovereignty belongs to the people? I think not. This is the reason that governance since independence has failed to improve the lives of the people. Instead of governments being servants of the people, they all became our masters.
When the two monsters (major political parties) sat in parliament in 2007 and endorsed article 156.3,c. in its present form, it signaled the continuity of paramountcy of the parties – Burnham style. Sovereignty belongs to the people died a second death in 2007. The parties demanded the right to recall the representatives of the people (MPs) at their pleasure. If this is not paramountcy, what is?
Mr. Alert wrote, “Elected Member, Charrandass Persaud, failed to honour the trust placed in him by the electors, and the oath he took to honour the relevant requirements of Article 156”. How does this statement coincide with article 9, “Sovereignty belongs to the people, who exercise it through their representatives and the democratic organs by or under this Constitution?”
Clearly the people (electors) give the right to their representative to do as they see fit in their interest. The political parties subverted that right through article 156.3.c. Charrandas’ “yes” should not be construed as a vote for the PPP. His vote is based on his perception of the dissatisfaction of some 8000 electors that resonate to his seat and the constitution afforded him that right through a vote of confidence. Albeit, he had to elude the maze set in article 156.3,c. by the two monsters to stop – “sovereignty belongs to the people, who exercise it through their representatives”.
Mr. Alert and all the commentators who try to condemn Charrandass’ action have not and will never venture into the thesis and presence of a vote of confidence in the constitution, because they know that will put their arguments in checkmate.
The list system has been a millstone around the people’s neck since independence. Only people can represent people. The list system is too vague and indirect to be effective, it should be done with.
We need Constitutional Reform to elect our representatives through geographical constituencies.
Article 156.3.c. must be abolished. Only the people in a geographical constituency must have the right to recall their representative by popular vote because sovereignty belongs to them. This is the only way we can break the shackles of paramountcy of the parties and stop our representatives from being “yes men”.
With free men and women representing us, it would be expedient for a two-thirds majority for a No confidence motion.
Rudolph Singh

---

---