Dear Editor,
In an article in SN dated December 24th 2011 and captioned `PPP/C accuses the opposition of insincerity in speaker negotiations’, the PPP/C is reported to have said that there are precedents within the Commonwealth that dictate that the speaker comes from the ruling party. They say this opportunistically without an examination of the type of constitution present in those countries. If I am not incorrect in those countries the party with a minority of votes would usually coalesce with another to gain the requisite majority. I think in one case a party with one or a few seats was able to get the Prime Minister position. Such was the stiff negotiations.
Our constitution is different. It allows the minority to be the ruling party and in this instance the ruling party still wants to run things as if the electorate had given them the majority. They want what they ask for and they are not willing to give anything just as when they governed with a majority. Then they also gave nothing to the opposition and I am sure that this is in contradiction to precedents in the commonwealth countries.
How do I describe its argument when it continues to say that “This was the practice when the PPP had the majority in parliament as well”? I would not but simply say, Dear sirs the electorate did not give you the majority.
I am following with interest the new dispensation, unprecedented in Guyana, as we see the PPP holding the Presidency with all its concomitant powers and we see the combined opposition holding the majority in parliament. I consider this a victory for Guyana and its people as we may now have some form of responsible government.
Is this good for Guyana? My opinion is yes. It creates the precondition, in my opinion, for great things to come but these are predicated upon the ruling party and the opposition putting Guyana first. I suggest that there is no fixed situation as each of the opposition parties can vote with the government side as it sees fit or they can vote for each other.
Having said that there is one area which the parliament has to give consideration to and that is past abuses of parliament by the ruling party. Abuses that denied the opposition a real say and which in fact emasculated parliament. The Opposition with that in mind would find itself very reluctant to give control over parliament to a speaker from the ruling party and the ruling party unless it is absolutely without remorse should understand this.
The way they treated the opposition when they had the majority, contravened the positive conventions of the Commonwealth. The way they utilised the executive presidency has no precedent in the Commonwealth. The way the PPP got away with unbridled corruption has no precedent. And the way the PPP can spend the people’s money without the approval of parliament has no precedent. The way they gave away the people’s property to friends at rock bottom prices has no precedent and the list goes on.
It’s time for us to establish a few decisions that can become positive precedents for the future. By God what happened? I thought the PPP was a revolutionary party with the aim of transforming things to make room for more democratic norms. They have to listen to the voice of the majority. The majority has to have its way. That is the precedent that the PPP established. That is the democratic way.
So any threat to future collaboration with the opposition by President Donald Ramotar, has to be seen for what it is and that is an inability not only to break away from the past approach but also an inability or unwillingness to comprehend the present dispensation. Your Excellency, the people of Guyana have not given you the right of way. They have indicated that you have to stop at the major roads and you have to look, observe the state of the traffic before you proceed and my advice is when you proceed do so cautiously.
To the people that withheld their support for the PPP by not voting you have done a good deed for Guyana; to those who voted against the PPP congratulations as you were able to move on with Guyana first in your mind. To those who stuck to the old forces you have to hold your parties accountable to you and carefully consider whether you would support them again. While you could not break the navel strings that seemingly attach you to these parties for whatever reasons, you should come to grips with the fact that you are not owned by any political parties and the sooner you examine the issues that affect you, the sooner you recognize the policies that are in your interests, the sooner you recognize that the colour of the President’s skin is not the important factor, the sooner you would help to make Guyana a better place for our people especially the future generations.
Yours faithfully,
Rajendra Nauth Bisessar
BSc Soc, BSc Law
