Dear Editor,
The AFC must be lauded for allotting (reserving) two seats to the diaspora (article captioned ‘AFC to keep two Parliament seats for Diaspora -Ramjattan’ in SN, Mar 3). It is the only party that has made a firm and quantified commitment to the diaspora that has been so crucial to the development of the nation, not to mention their immense financial contributions in remittances to their brethren and to the struggle to terminate the oppressive dictatorship. For the AFC’s gesture, overseas based Guyanese I have spoken with are grateful, but some also scoffed at the idea seeing it as condescending. They are not comfortable with the idea of being given seats for which they made no contribution in voter support.
It is noted, for example, that the diaspora cannot vote unless they are registered and return home to cast ballots. Therefore, overseas based Guyanese are not contributing to the party’s (or to any other party’s) total voter support to get additional seats under our PR system. In the voting system, only actual votes matter (although money, strategies, and moral support also matter) and the more votes a party gets, the more seats it is likely to be allocated. Reserving two seats for the diaspora members of the AFC reduces seats for more deserving local members of the party, who may have earned their stripes by canvassing for votes, whereas the overseas members are providing funds, not critical votes. If overseas AFC members return home and cast ballots that add up to about 10,000 votes (since 5,000 votes qualify for a seat), then the diaspora would be deserving of two seats. Since the diaspora will not be contributing any votes, then no seats should go to its members unless they return home, are on the ballot as candidates, campaign for and earn votes. That will be fair.
Reserving two seats for the diaspora poses all kinds of challenges for the party – like who gets the seats? Will they be allocated based on the racial composition of the population? And what if the AFC wins only two seats, no seat will go to the party leadership or members in Guyana?
I think a better proposition for the AFC, indeed all parties, is to state categorically that overseas based Guyanese are entitled to and will be granted representation in parliament and have the right to vote and run for office once they are registered and are at home for voting. In this way, whoever from the diaspora wants to run for office can return home and seek office. Like my brother Khemraj Ramjattan, I believe overseas based Guyanese are entitled to run for office and or to vote, and they should be encouraged to pursue these rights. The diaspora has a strong interest in the homeland, following events with a passion. There are several who joined me (when once they were with the PPP or ROAR and have now defected to the AFC) in the struggle for the restoration of democracy in our homeland, helping to topple the dictatorship.
Their rights, indeed those of the entire diaspora, as citizens should never be restricted, even though the Burnham constitution limits our rights.
On a final note, based on my own assessment on interviews I did in recent studies on Guyanese in America, if US-based Guyanese were given the right to vote, the AFC may collect just enough votes for two seats, while the rest of the nearly 400,000 adult Guyanese would vote the traditional way. I met and spoke with Portuguese and Amerindian Guyanese who told me they would vote UF and GAP. Old voter habits still persist even among Guyanese abroad. Voters have not shown as much change as some think.
Yours faithfully,
Vishnu Bisram
