Dear Editor,
In Sunday Stabroek’s editorial of November 9, 2008, when referring to Members of Parliament, there is the sentence: “They are adults elected to represent their constituents, and as such are paid to exercise their own judgment on those constituents’ behalf.” This is a true democratic principle but is it what exists in Guyana?

Would not a more correct statement be, ‘Parliamentarians in Guyana are generally persons from a political party who are accepted by their party on that party’s list and appointed by the party to represent a given area (constituency) of the country’? The voters in Guyana vote for a list, not individuals who will “exercise their own judgment on those constituents’ behalf.”
This emasculation of the parliamentarian was finalized by the bill passed by Parliament with a two-thirds majority in 2007, whereby if a parliamentarian votes his/her conscience, which may not follow the party line, then the parliamentarian will be expelled from Parliament. So much for the exercise of his/her judgment.

Guyana has a dictatorship of the party. The major opposition party voted to keep their leader’s position not realizing it was sealing their own coffin. Without the parliamentarian’s individual conscience there is no democracy. A few persons make the decisions. This rule by the party’s elite leads to corruption on a scale few can imagine. The collective debate of a Parliament is meaningless. Policy over-rides law as the parliamentary process is voided.
Yours faithfully,
(Name and address provided)