Power sharing demands are resurrected whenever the PPP/C is in government

Aug 15, 2023 Features / Columnists, Peeping Tom

---

Kaieteur News – When the APNU+AFC lost a no-confidence motion in the National Assembly in 2019, idea was floated that a simple majority was in fact a super majority: that instead of 33 being the smallest majority of 65, it should really have been 34 – one vote higher than the lowest threshold of a simple majority.

Many people found that sort of reasoning as defying the traditional laws of mathematics. But the APNU+AFC desperate to hold on to power, clung desperately to this absurdity.

But what is a simple majority and what is a supermajority? A simple majority and a supermajority are two different voting thresholds used in decision-making processes. These thresholds determine the number or proportion of votes required to pass a resolution, enact a law, or make a decision.

A simple majority is achieved when more than half of the total votes cast are in favour of a particular option. In other words, a simple majority is achieved when the number of “yes” votes exceeds half of the total number of votes. For example, in a group of 100 people, a simple majority would be 51 votes in favour.

On the other hand, a supermajority requires a larger proportion of votes in favour of a particular option. Supermajorities are often expressed as a specific percentage or a specific number of votes greater than a simple majority. It can be by two-thirds, or by three-quarters of those either voting or eligible to vote.

We are now witnessing a call for political decision-making to be made by supermajorities rather than simple majority. In other words, this call is for a higher threshold than simple majority. But if the Opposition has such a difficulty understanding a simple majority, how can anyone trust them to determine a supermajority?

The idea that political decision-making should be by supermajority rather than a simple majority, is a disguised proposal for power-sharing. Therefore, those who are making this suggestion must answer why they did not make it when the APNU+AFC coalition was in power? Was political consensus not desirable then? How come it is desirable now and not then?

Why is it that we only hear about these power sharing proposals when the PPP/C is in government? But when the APNU+AFC coalition was in office, these power-sharing proposals seem to go into seclusion.

Are these power sharing proposals really about forging greater political consensus or is it about power-snatching?

The fact of the matter is that our Constitution provides for supermajorities. To change certain provisions of the Constitution requires a super majority. To appoint certain office holders such as the Chancellor and Chief Justice, consensus is needed.

Where has this consensus requirement gotten us? For more than 15 years, there has been gridlock in terms of the appointment of the country’s top two judicial positions. What is going to happen if, for example, a super majority is required to pass the Budget or Bills in the National Assembly?

A reliance on supermajorities carries significant drawbacks and potential pitfalls. Supermajorities will lead to legislative paralysis. The Opposition can hold the government to ransom by refusing to compromise and this can lead to all manner of corruption, including attempts at buying political support for legislation.

Majority rule has been the bedrock of democratic governance. Guyana’s political system is based on majoritarian rule. Supermajority requirements run the risk of diluting this principle and thus undermining democratic governance.

Why have supermajorities for political decision-making and not for electing a President?  We may never have an elected government if a supermajority is needed to elected a President.

High voting thresholds has already acted as disincentive for constitutional change. Both sides of the political divide know that they will not gain the support need to have a supermajority to effect major changes to the Constitution. So what is the use of trying?

Instead of promoting consensus, supermajority requirements can increase political polarizations. In an effort to secure enough votes, parties may resort to extreme positions or engage in horse-trading, potentially leading to watered-down or ineffective legislation. The demand for supermajorities can discourage compromise and encourage political rigidity.

But if those who are now advancing this latest “power sharing” suggestion are really serious, they can lobby the Opposition to give effect to it at the level of local government. The Opposition controls the municipalities of Linden, Georgetown and New Amsterdam. Perhaps the Opposition may want to demonstrate how this supermajority can work at the local level. It can urge its councillors to adopt an unwritten rule that no decision in any of the three above-named municipalities should be carried unless in enjoys 75% of the total number of councillors.

Let us see how this idea works at the municipal level. Then we can think about adopting it at the regional and then national levels.

(The views expressed in this article are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the opinions and beliefs of this newspaper and its affiliates.)

---

• APNU+AFC, desperate, Government, Laws, Peeping Tom

---