Much discussion and debate has occurred since the elections of 2011 in relation to post-elections coalitions in Guyana. This debate advanced the false notion that our constitution prohibits such coalitions. This is absolutely untrue. This is no law or constitutional provision that prevented President Ramotar in 2011, when the PPP/C lost its absolute majority and obtained a plurality, from inviting the AFC or APNU or both, to join his government by offering a proportionate share of ministries. President Ramotar chose not to do so, preferring to head a minority government which was bound to fail, as it eventually did. The result of the elections of 2011 which exposed some disaffection of Indian support for the PPP, the PPP’s adamant hostility to a post-election coalition, its fear of the electorate by refusing to hold local government elections which would have induced the AFC to withdraw its no confidence motion and the woeful lack of vision of the PPP/C in the campaign and in government, created to conditions for a pre-elections coalition between the APNU and AFC.Read more
Guyana’s main political parties will only be interested in constitutional reform to transform our ethno-political system, if a sufficiently large portion of the electorate demands it. Consider the following: In free and fair elections, the PPP will obtain either the votes of the majority or of a plurality because the Indian Guyanese population is the largest single block. The PNCR will obtain the second largest number of votes because African Guyanese are the second largest block.Read more
President Granger’s address to the National Assembly completely omitted any reference to constitutional reform. Since a budgetary provision was made, the Guyanese people were entitled to be told what legislative initiatives to expect from the Government.Read more
Those who advocate changes in the composition and method of selection of the members of the Elections Commission suffer from the ostrich syndrome. They have their heads, like the proverbial ostrich, buried in the sand. They ignore that elections in Guyana are the victim of two enduring Guyanese realities – a history of election rigging and ethno-political demons. That is why even the agreed constitutionally enshrined method after 1992 of choosing the chair and members is now failing.Read more
A report on the cost of food for each sitting of Parliament, being $700,000, has triggered a particularly sharp debate about the cost and the alleged supply of alcohol. The Leader of the Opposition, Mr. Bharrat Jagdeo, confessed that he consumes the food. He said: “I eat the food. What do you suggest? I don’t eat the food? I eat the food…I like eating too. And it’s not like it’s fancy food. It’s not fancy food…” The problem the teetotaler Mr. Jagdeo said, confirming the traditionally austere leadership of the PPP, was the alcohol. “It’s not just the food. It’s the huge amount of alcohol that gets consumed and imbibed in Parliament…fancy, fancy, liquor.” Mr. Jagdeo noted that Opposition members would hardly ever, if at all, utilize alcohol provided by Parliament Office. “They do eat. We eat. I eat the food,” he emphasized, “..but it’s the alcohol part that I have a problem with.” But the politics intruded. Mr. Jagdeo suggested that it was some Government members who excessively imbibed during sittings. After suggesting that the cost of the alcohol might be as much as the cost of food, he recommended that members purchase their own alcohol.
If the Leader of the Opposition was concerned that MPs would be drunk on their feet or otherwise in Parliament, he should not worry. The public, viewing debates, would assume that MPs are drunk anyway – Government Members, with power, and Opposition Members, seeking it.