The government yesterday used its majority to send a motion by the AFC on campaign financing to a special select committee, after effecting an amendment that MP Sheila Holder said gutted it of its original intent.
The motion, moved by Holder, saw some raucous debate as government speakers defended the record of the administration, following charges of misuse of state resources by opposition parliamentarians. “We are very clear that the misuse of state resources is the core issue in this motion, you remove it and you degut the motion,” Holder said.
The first resolve clause in the motion as originally proposed said: “That this National Assembly recognizes that a strong democracy requires healthy political parties, resources to sustain and operate a basic party structure capable of representing people, contributing creatively to the public policy debate, and contesting elections; and that the role of money in politics undeniably influences the quality of democracy and governance.” This clause was changed to a “whereas” clause and the latter part referring to money in politics was deleted.
The second resolve clause called for the government to present to the National Assembly relevant laws and regulations pertaining to a political party campaign financing, and “curtail abuse of public resources by the incumbent leading up to and during elections as recommended by the Commonwealth Secretariat in order to create a level playing field for contesting parties at elections in Guyana.”
Holder called for a division on the government’s move to delete this clause and replace it with a new clause; 17 opposition members voted against but 24 government members voted for the amendment. After the motion was passed with the amendments, Holder said that the AFC would be focusing their energies on the Guyana Elections Commission (GECOM) as the government seems to have no intention of addressing the issue.
The contentious clause was deleted and replaced by the amendment proposed by TUF MP Manzoor Nadir. The amendment said: “Be it resolved that this National Assembly approves the establishment of a Special Select Committee to examine the existing laws and regulations regarding political parties’ electoral expenses, examine legislation in other countries in relation to political party campaign financing and report its findings and recommendations for this National Assembly’s consideration.”
In piloting the motion, Holder said that the open environment of spending during an election campaign, lends itself to corruption and vote-buying. The issue of PPP/C Presidential Candidate Donald Ramotar going on Cabinet outreaches was also criticised by the opposition, with the AFC’s Presidential Candidate Khemraj Ramjattan pointing out that it was only yesterday that Ramotar was appointed an advisor to President Bharrat Jagdeo.
Holder said that this appointment was a direct response to their advocacy on the issue and is also a “recognition of wrongdoing” that the PPP was involved in.
But PPP/C MP Gail Teixeira said that they were nitpicking. The president can determine who he wishes to sit in his government and who he wishes as his advisors and this is not a problem by law or the Constitution of Guyana, she said. “The president can invite anybody he so wishes to sit in the cabinet while it is meeting. The Cabinet outreaches by definition are Cabinet, not in situ, so it is a Cabinet, it’s a moving, roving Cabinet and so it falls under the same rubric that the President and Cabinet are going to meet people, he can include anybody and that includes any Member of Parliament,” she argued. “This nitpicking…is of no consequence,” Teixeira added.
The government speakers, Nadir, Teixeira and Anil Nandlall, indicated support for campaign financing legislation but argued that it would take time to do this and criticized the wording of the motion. Teixeira spoke of several models used in different countries and said that the clause on curtailing abuse of public resources was never recommended by the Commonwealth Secretariat. The recommendation pointed out that the election laws should be amended, she said. “This is an important issue that I believe that the amendments that the government has put on this motion have not done damage to the intent and purpose of this motion,” Teixeira said. According to her, it has enhanced and strengthened the motion and therefore “instead of quibbling over minutiae, we are suggesting that the motion, particularly the last paragraph to go to select committee.”
She said that it was not the PPP’s fault that the motion had only reached the House yesterday, pointing out that it was deferred several times by the AFC. “We are saying that this matter, there’s a short period before elections, as a select committee we could do a lot of the examinations and being able to come to this House and say what needs to be amended,” she said, stressing that there is no sinister movement. “You either give us a choice, reject the motion as it is because it is inoperable or to strengthen it so that it can be operable and therefore would have the blessing of this House that we’ve reached unanimity on an issue and be able to move forward,” Teixeira said.
But Holder responded that the government speakers were trying to obfuscate the core issue of abuse and misuse of state resources. “We are very clear that the misuse of state resources is the core issue in this motion, you remove it and you degut the motion,” Holder said. “We will not be hoodwinked into believing that if we accede to the request of the government benches and take this motion to a parliamentary select committee without an examination of how you can curtail the misuse of state resources that the exercise will be worthy for the participation of members of this side of the House,” she continued.
“I say unequivocally, it will not. And I say now that I will not accept those conditions unless the issue is put on the table for discussion, And since you have indicated that you will not, I therefore reject, I will not support your amendment to the motion,” Holder declared.
Given the government position, Holder said that it makes better sense to make GECOM accountable because the Constitution make it clear that they have a duty to ensure that elections are held in a transparent manner and that they are free and fair. The Representation of the People Act also gives GECOM a referee role to play, which they have not been playing, she charged. She said that the party will focus their energies on GECOM since government has no intention of addressing the issue.
