Dear Editor,
The three political parties are on record as opposing the kind of political system Speaker Ralph Ramkarran is proposing – ‘Revert to Cabinet system of government’ (SN, Sep 1); not one of them has proposed reverting to the British model of governance.
The general feeling I get is that the leadership of the parties somehow believes that reverting to anything left behind by the ‘imperialists’ would be a return to a colonial mindset.
Yet Mr Ramkarran’s proposal may be the best political system for Guyana and indeed one which almost the entire population supports and to which the parties should give some thought, rather than dismiss it outright. The Ramkarran initiative could work to address ethnic conflict or minority rule in Guyana.
I recall conducting a poll several years ago on whether people preferred the current Burnham constitution or the British imposed constitution.
The findings were startling as only a handful of people wanted the Burnham constitution.
The overwhelming support for the British model of governance could be because of the stain attached to the Burnham name.
Under the British model left at independence, the formation of a government required the majority support of the members of parliament. Since no party commanded a majority, a coalition of parties was inevitable (as is the case in Britain and several other countries in Europe, as well as Australia, New Zealand, etc).
The problem with that model is that two parties (representatives of their ethnic groups) could come together and form a government and exclude other (ethnic parties) parties once they command a majority in parliament, as happened after the December 1964 election in Guyana, when the largest party was excluded from governance.
Mr Ramkarran addresses the problem by suggesting that any party garnering a minimum 10% of the vote should have the option of joining the cabinet. Post-apartheid South Africa had a similar arrangement with a minimum threshold of 5% guaranteeing representation of ethnic groups that constitute a significant portion of the population.
The Whites joined the cabinet for two years and then withdrew participation.
Fiji also had a similar arrangement in its post-coup constitution of 1999. While the Indian Fijian Prime Minister Mahendra Chaudhry enforced that provision of the constitution, after he was overthrown, the Black Fijian government refused to include any Indians in the cabinet although the Indian party won 44% of the votes. So the system there failed because there was no enforcement power. Prime Minister Laisenia Qarase even defied the order of the Supreme Court to include any Indian in his cabinet.
The military head eventually toppled the regime and included two Indians in the cabinet with Chaudhry being made Finance Minister and another Indian the Attorney General.
Chaudhry eventually resigned over disagreement with the military commander, Bainimarama. Fiji will be having elections later this month under a ‘non-ethnic’ constitution (allowing for coalitions if no party wins a majority) that is likely to be won by a new party formed by the military ruler; Indians are overwhelmingly supporting him based on a poll I conducted because of his “non-ethnic politics.”
A political system in which one party (ethnic group) dominates governance is unacceptable for any divided society; such a system leads to political instability affecting economic development.
Almost every divided society has some kind of consociational or coalition arrangement to maximize political participation and minimize political disruptions. Most European countries have the kind of political system being proposed by Mr Ramkarran; and more and more countries are being governed by coalitions because one party has found it difficult to win a majority on its own and even when it wins alone others are hell bent to bring it down.
The former Speaker, a man of integrity and widely respected throughout the nation, should develop his model further and hold discussions with major stakeholders for their views and additional inputs on reforming the political system.
The leadership of the three parties should reconsider their opposition to anything that reminds them of the British system.
As I do not have access to Mr Ramkarran’s article, I would be curious to know how the Prime Minister and President would be chosen – presumably it would be worked out in negotiation? After the 1968 election rigging, Dr Jagan suggested a coalition government with the Prime Minister coming from the largest party and the ceremonial head of state President coming from the second largest party.
That formula could be explored.
Yours faithfully,
Vishnu Bisram
