Dear Editor,
I write in response to the letters ‘Bring back the constituency system…’ (2 February 2021 by B. Ramcharan), and the response to that ‘Removing list requirement in Article 160(2) (a)…’(4 February 2021 by T. Campbell).
Firstly, I wish to clear up the confusion on the introduction of the Proportional Representation (PR) system in Guyana. Dr. Ramcharan and Mr. Campbell are at odds on who introduced PR. Historical records would show that they are both partially correct. The colonial government had, for successive electoral cycles done its best to bring about the defeat of Jagan and his party. In fact, Chief Minister Jagan alluded to this in an interview highlighting the British efforts made to secure this and that it had so far not worked. At the 1963 round table conference in October at Lancaster House, it was the PNC and the UF who proposed the adoption of a purely PR system (apologists and commenters for both parties may get riled up, but one thing the British was good at is keeping meticulous records of their activities, and these events are now in the public domain).
Both parties, PNC and UF, refused to budge on various compromises including: an upper house elected by PR while the lower house was constituency based; and a mixed PR-constituency system (much like that in Suriname). Britain would eventually be guided in its quest to remove Jagan from office in imposing the PR system (a system not used in any other British / Commonwealth Caribbean country at the time, including Trinidad and Tobago which – of the commonwealth Caribbean countries – most closely reflects the demographic makeup of Guyana). Secretary of State for the Colonies Duncan Sandys acquiesced to the PNC and UF position to the point where the PPP no longer took part in the final round table conference.
I say the above as a matter of the historical record, not as a debate of right or wrong.
As it relates to the two letters, Dr. Ramcharan calls for the reintroduction of the constituency system. I do not agree that a purely constituency system will work for us, simply, because of examples I have highlighted in a previous letter on this issue. That is: one of the inherent flaws in the constituency system is the ability of a party to get 100% of the seats while receiving a bare majority of the votes. This is not a fairy tale outcome. I have posited examples of how this has occurred in the past 10 years in our own Caribbean backyard, and the parliamentary and constitutional implications of this.
The best reason a pure constituency system won’t work here in Guyana (even though some may argue it works in Trinidad) is our political mentality. Not one person can honestly say if a party wins a greater number of seats, compared to the percentage of votes it receives, then every other party will accept it. It simply won’t happen. Guyanese are not even mature enough politically to have smooth transfer of power like what happens in Trinidad, and if we lack the maturity to accept results in a PR system, then a purely constituency system will inflame the political situation even more.
Mr. Campbell says we already have a hybrid system and quotes the division of the country into geographical constituencies. However the use of the word ‘constituency’ in this case is a far cry from what is normally expected in a constituency system. Our geographical constituencies is simply another way for the padding of party seats by PR. There are no members of parliament responsible to these constituencies (in fact most do not even reside there). The geographical representation aspect of our system is in name only. Geographical representatives are chosen by the party, loyal to the party, removed by the party, and even chosen proportionally in the multi member ‘geographical constituencies’.
As I had posited in my first letter on this, Guyana needs a system that accounts for proportionality to give smaller parties a fighting chance, and also provides for direct representation into smaller constituencies of similar populations to ensure that the person elected to parliament, is representative of the constituency that voted them into office.
At the very minimum, such a system should include a parliament containing:
-A number of proportional seats
-A larger number of constituency seats where each candidate is elected only by the voters of that constituency and, in the case of a vacancy, is replaced by a by-election in that particular constituency.
We do not have to dream up this from scratch. New Zealand utilizes a mixed system much like I have described above, and have had greater small party representation in all of their elections since its introduction. There are even more examples out there. The bottom line is and will be: are we, as a people, really committed to the reform of our system? Are we mature enough to accept that reform? I feel that many people will say yes topically, but deep down feel differently. This is certainly true of our politicians. After all who benefits most from this current system? Definitely not the average citizen – no matter how fanatically enthused they get every five years.
Respectfully,
V. Hemsworth
