Dear Editor,
While supporting the general point of Professor Seecharan’s letter advocating a coalition between the two main parties I would suggest some caution. In trying to solve the problem of ethnic suspicions and tensions a greater evil may ensue. The two main parties are so similar in outlook that if they formed a coalition government one can only imagine what harm combined they might do to the people of Guyana: in the decades since independence neither party in their time in power has done well for Guyana. After the next election there should be a national government composed of all elected members of parliament committed to changing the constitution within a period of nine months. A new election would then be called under the new constitution.
The first change should be to separate the election of the President from that of the legislature. The President would be the Head of State as the holder of that office currently is with the primary role of protecting the constitution. That change would ensure that any coalitions could in future be formed after not before the election as the necessity of having large blocs of voters to ensure the election of an over-powerful President would no longer exist. The legislature would elect the Prime Minister.
The second change would be that the legislature should have at least fifty three percent female members. This may be the only way that violence against women would be properly punished and that Guyanese men would stop believing they own Guyanese women.
Lest this sounds like another man trying to shift the burden of difficult tasks unto the shoulders of women, all women members of parliament would job-share with another woman. The cost of this duplication would be borne by reducing by half the pensions of ex-Presidents, Prime Ministers and Ministers. I am sure there are enough people willing to prove to them, by rounding-up, that their pensions have not changed.
The Electoral Commission needs to be properly funded so that it can conduct registrations and hold elections at any time.
Two last minor amendments to the Constitution: in the case of a no-confidence vote that the actual number of the majority should be specified (this proofing against people whose grasp of arithmetic is shaky seems more than necessary) and that prorogation cannot be used to prevent a no confidence vote.
Yours faithfully,
Peter D Fraser
