Dear Editor,
The No-Confidence motion which was passed in the National Assembly on December 21, created tremendous confusion in the society, particularly at the political level and on social media where the debates are rigorous amongst the laymen experts and political surrogates. We’re now seeing all sorts of arguments and positions being put forward with regards to whether the No Confidence motion is valid or not. The Speaker of the National Assembly must be applauded for not overturning the motion and allowing all parties to seek remedy in the courts.
It is rather unfortunate that from both sides of the political aisle, the society has been given some rather misleading and downright irresponsible statements. As a result, the ethnic fault lines in the politics have erupted yet again with vicious racial rhetoric. The political leaders must demonstrate leadership at this time in the interest of maintaining a peaceful environment.
One of the more important building blocks of the society which the political leaders must at all times seek to protect is the democratic process. The No Confidence motion is a democratic process which is provided for in the constitution of Guyana. The opposition PPP/C was within its right to bring such a motion. I am without doubt that the PPP/C had prior knowledge that a government MP would cross the floor to vote for its motion. The art of politics, particularly parliamentary politics is to seek to influence members from the other side of the aisle to support or not any motions or positions. Likewise, the coalition should’ve been careful in managing its coherence and members.
Notwithstanding, the APNU+ AFC coalition has so far not put forward any evidence that MP Charrandass Persaud, who sided with the opposition to make the motion of No confidence successful, has been financially induced to support the opposition’s motion. If MP Charrandass Persaud has been financially induced to vote for the No Confidence motion, that would constitute a criminal act and the full brunt of the law should be brought to bear. It would also be an act to remove a democratically elected government and all those responsible should be investigated. However, the APNU+AFC government must produce the evidence rather than make vacuous accusations.
There are a number of arguments that are being thrown around regarding the validity of the No Confidence motion. Nigel Hughes’ expert opinion is the most referenced and the one which the APNU+AFC government seems to have gravitated towards. I do not believe it can hold up in court and if I were advising the Government, I would advise them to begin to prepare for elections in 90 days as article 106 (7) of constitution stipulates. There is tremendous precedent for 33 seats being the majority in a 65-seat Parliament. The government was formed based on that 33 seats majority, Bills in parliament are passed based on that 33 seats majority, therefore it stands to reason that 33 seats establishes precedence as a majority and must be used as the basis for a No Confidence motion. Furthermore, the argument used by Mr. Hughes, of rounding up from 32.5 to 33 to arrive at half of 65 is not mathematically logical. One vote represents a natural number. There is no 0.5 of a vote, and there is no rounding up or down in counting votes. If a number is divided by 2 to arrive at its half, then logically that number must also be able to be multiplied by 2 to arrive at its whole. 33 multiplied by 2 is 66 not 65. So, where there is an uneven number like 65, 33 is greater than 32 and as such a majority.
Another argument which is being bandied around, particularly by APNU+AFC surrogates is that the motion is not valid because it violated article 156(3) of the constitution. This article is mentioned in the Speaker of the National Assembly’s preamble, when he refused to reverse his position, and seemingly gave credence to the article as an avenue for challenging the No Confidence motion. Article 156(3) of the constitution states that; “A member of the National Assembly elected on a list shall be disqualified from being a member of the Assembly, if he or she, in the prescribed manner, declares that he or she will not support the list from which his or her name was extracted or, declares that he or she abstain from supporting that list or, declares his or her support for another list.” The reading of the article bears the interpretation that disqualification of a member of the National Assembly would occur if that member ‘declares’ that he/she will not support a list (party) that he or she was chosen to represent in parliament. ‘Declare’ is taken to mean, stated with the expressed intent to not support the Party and or to support another party. Therefore, no member of parliament will cross over from one party to another and still remain a Member of Parliament. I do not believe that the intent of this article is to prohibit members of the National Assembly from exercising their conscience, which is a fundamental democratic exercise, or from fostering bipartisan support in parliament. A MP can support a bill or motion brought by one party yet continue to ‘declare’ support for his/her list.
Though the APNU+AFC coalition has signalled its intent to seek remedy in the courts, it must be careful not to alienate the ethnic plurality it most definitively needs if it will win another election. As such, the coalition must be careful as well as deliberate with its messaging. So far it is not doing that and some of its surrogates have been especially reckless in their rhetoric. The strategy of any political party which relies on a coalition to govern must always be managing that coalition and the electoral support which made that coalition possible.
Yours faithfully,
Dennis Wiggins
