Latest update March 22nd, 2025 6:44 AM
Latest News
- “Guyana will not be intimidated, coerced” – President Ali tells Maduro
- PNCR maintains it will engage experts on ring-fencing only when in office – Elson Low
- Israel threatens annexation after expanding ground offensive in Gaza
- 𝐆𝐂𝐂𝐈 𝐞𝐥𝐞𝐜𝐭𝐬 𝐟𝐢𝐫𝐬𝐭 w𝐨𝐦𝐚𝐧 𝐏𝐫𝐞𝐬𝐢𝐝𝐞𝐧𝐭
- Teen killed in accident after pulling steering wheel during row with boyfriend
Dictatorship anti-defection/voting against the list clause must be removed
DEAR EDITOR,
I note with keen interest the ongoing debates on whether some of the constitutional provisions/clauses, especially those which address defection/voting against the list, confidence vote, and the dual citizenship parliamentarians, should be amended/reformed.
The arguments seem inconclusive given the current political overtones/divide. Nevertheless, I take the informed view that these clauses need to be revisited, with the view of bringing them in line with Guyana’s needs and long term goals. In this letter, I have chosen to spotlight some reasons for removing the anti-defection clause as a way of advancing and concretizing our democracy.
In the first instance, that clause is a dictatorship clause, which by its very nature is anti- democratic. To force parliamentarians to vote for the list or not to vote in favour of the other side is undemocratic, if not tyrannical. It is saying that even if the bill/issue to be decided is detrimental to our society, the individual cannot/must not vote against it.
It also means that even if members of the opposition are in support they cannot vote for it, as it would be against the party list. True democracy attempts to build up, through opposing groups’ negotiating and compromising with each other, an intellectual and emotional environment and ultimately, a political culture that fosters moderation and collective progress.
Success in the context of political bargaining and negotiation requires actors to internalize certain “rules of the political game” that demand respect for the rights of all participants. The democratic process itself is a form of justice, i.e., it is a just procedure for arriving at collective decisions. This clause, in effect, is antidemocratic.
Further, those who argue for consociational democracy would support the view that amendment/reformation or complete removal of this clause would be required to facilitate any such development.
Under the power-sharing ideology, members of Parliament should/must be allowed to vote for particular bills/programs/policies which they are convinced would advance the national development strategies or vote against them if they would hinder such progress. This means that some may have to vote across party lines/against the list.
The current clause would not permit such behaviour; It requires anyone intending to do so to notify the Speaker of the House, and should they do so, their political party can and may stop them before the vote is taken, thus, defeating the power-sharing arrangement and stymieing national progress.
Finally, as the German Constitutional Court, quoting the U.S. Supreme Court, stated, ‘the basic right of free expression is one of the principal human rights … it is a constituent element in a free, democratic order, … it is free speech that permits continuous intellectual discussion, the battle of opinions that is its vital element … In a certain sense it is the indispensable condition of nearly every other form of freedom.’
Democratic theory also sanctifies rights necessary for political participation, such as a certain degree of privacy so that a person may join or support unpopular causes without fear of sanctions imposed either by government or fellow citizens. In other words, freedom of expression, whether voting in Parliament or otherwise, is healthy for democracy, and therefore, should not be harnessed/blindfolded for selfish/partisan political gains/purposes.
In a nutshell, as Thomas Jefferson once stated, ‘the mass of citizens is the safest depository of their own rights.’ True democracy enshrines participation for its positive effect of allowing expression of individual dignity and autonomy, as well as its negative effect of limiting governmental incursions into substantive rights.
In essence, the anti-defection/voting against the list clause in our Constitution facilitates and fosters a dictatorship regime which Guyana can ill-afford at this juncture.
If we are to achieve parliamentary democracy, and ultimately, true progress as a nation, we must have full voluntary participation from Parliamentarians, irrespective of party affiliations, especially when voting on matters of national interest. This is not possible with the current anti-defection/voting against the slate clause as the ‘Charrandass vote against the list’ continues to demonstrate.
Yours sincerely,
Ronald Singh
Similar Articles
THE BLUNT OF THE DAY
Sports
Features/Columnists
Following one’s conscience rather than the crowd
Peeping Tom… Kaieteur News- “They’re certainly entitled to think that, and they’re entitled to full respect... more
Weekend Cartoon
