Dear Editor,
As I anticipated, my views on overseas voting have elicited some rational and some irrational comments, the latter driven by mere suspicion and our accusatory political atmosphere. Our sordid electoral past, in which the PPP played no part, except to fight it, still lingers to colour any debate on elections. Neither I nor the PPP want to return to that past. I will not respond to these empty accusations. Thankfully, elections are under the control of the Guyana Elections Commission and not the government, and all the elections so far have been certified as being free and fair and of international standard.

I want to remind Mr Corbin, though, that when we were members of the Elections Commission in 2001, I proposed that we should ask for an amendment to the constitution to provide for only residents of Guyana to have the right to vote. He did not take me up on the offer. If he does not recall this I am sure the then Chairman, Major-General Joe Singh, will remember. This would have settled the issue permanently.

But Mr Corbin and the PNCR have misconceived what I said. The right of Guyanese resident overseas to register and vote is not a matter of my advocacy or desire. I am not arguing for it. This right is provided for in the constitution. This being so the PNCR and others must then consider whether the voters’ list which is the product of a law, the National Registration Act, which limits registration to residents, is valid. If it is not, it cannot be the basis for free and fair elections.

And they must do so in the light of the case brought by Mr Corbin and his party through Esther Perreira challenging the 1997 elections in which the court ruled that a law which impeded the right of an elector to vote is unconstitutional.

This was the law, supported by the PNCR in Parliament, which it later found convenient to attack in court, which provided for a voter identification card.

This decision supports the view that any law which impedes the constitutional right to vote is unconstitutional. The voter ID law was unconstitutional and so, according to the logic of Esther Perreira, would be any law or order which provides for the extraction of the voters’ list from the national register on which only Guyanese who reside in Guyana are permitted to register. This impedes the right of Guyanese resident overseas from voting.

This is not a matter for discussion between political parties. Mr Corbin seems to assume that my article is a preliminary step in such a process. He can be assured that I did not and do not speak for the PPP in my articles. I doubt whether the PPP would be happy with a return to overseas voting. It has certainly never been discussed. This is a matter for the Guyana Elections Commis-sion which would be violating the constitution if it makes no provision for the registration and voting of Guyanese living overseas.

And if the question is asked why I raise the issue only now, the answer is that I raised it ten years ago in the Elections Commission when Mr Corbin was a member. The Elections Commission was then wrongly advised that the constitution does not allow persons residing out of Guyana to vote. I objected to that advice but was outvoted. My interest in the subject was revived when I recently read the views of Dr Manmohan Singh, the Indian Prime Minister, which I quoted in my article, to the effect that the Indian government was passing legislation to implement overseas voting.

In an article in the KN edition of the 12th Peeping Tom suggests that since the registration law provides for only residents to register, then only residents can vote. As I explained above, such a law conflicts with the constitution and is unconstitutional. Peeping Tom’s analysis is flawed and his/her conclusion is erroneous.

Yours faithfully,
Ralph Ramkarran