Dear Editor,
Permit me to write a response to the letter entitled, ‘MPs do not effectively represent the people because the system is warped’ (SN, November 17, 2020).
Before commenting on the substance of the letter, let me say how heartening it is to read material like this that indicates a growing impatience for change in Guyana’s political landscape.
It is especially encouraging to see indications of this attitude – as opposed to hopelessness and resignation – among young Guyanese, a reversal from the attitude that “this is Guyana” where nothing changes and nothing we do will make a difference.
This sense of optimism about the hope of electoral reform is a welcome first step, and I agree that it is possible to identify specific changes that can make the difference for the people of Guyana.
V. Hemsworth highlights a number of features of Guyana’s electoral system seen as weaknesses: the lack of representativeness of citizens’ interests inherent in the closed-list system, the associated lack of accountability of representatives, and the stranglehold of political parties and leaders over MPs’ loyalties. Interestingly, there seems to be an emerging consensus around these issues as major weaknesses of the current electoral system.
The letter proposes a mixed system as the solution – a combination of first-past-the-post at the constituency level and proportional representation at the overall national level. Hemsworth sees it as the way to strengthen the accountability connection between MPs and citizen voters.
This system, usually referred to as Mixed Member Proportional (MMP) system, is in operation in several countries. It is one of the systems featured in my book entitled, Electoral System Reform for a Diverse Nation, The Case of Guyana which was published in December 2019 (Available at bookstores such as Austin’s and Giftland, and at Amazon.com).
While it is not my intention to foreclose on one system or other at this time, I agree that MMP is a proposal worth considering.
At the same time, I am less convinced about Hemsworth’s suggestion that the 25/40 split between constituency and ‘top-up’ seats be maintained. If the objective is to strengthen the constituency component and shift MPs’ loyalties from party to people, why not expand the share of constituency seats substantially? Typically in this system there is a predominance of constituency seats over ‘’top-up’ seats.
Finally, the letter is correct in identifying mindset and political will as the biggest obstacle to successful reform. As another commentator on Hemsworth’s letter recognized, it is realistic to expect strong forces in favour of maintaining the status quo, but this should not be seen as an insurmountable obstacle.
Yours faithfully,
Desmond Thomas
