Dear Editor,
I want to clarify what I believe to be a confusion concerning the ongoing debate of dual citizenship individuals, or dual nationals, in Parliament.
We know that Article 155 (1)-(a) restricts dual citizenship individuals from becoming elected members in the National Assembly. The article states: “No person shall be qualified for election as a member of the National Assembly who—(a) is, by virtue of his own act, under any acknowledgment of allegiance, obedience or adherence to a foreign power or state.”
I have seen arguments in favour of reforming this article to include a criteria of residency, which some say, among other reasons, will alleviate concerns of a potential “runaway national.” But I believe this proposal is misguided because it doesn’t counter the constitution’s prohibition in question.
What advocates of reform should keep in mind is that the ban on dual nationals as stated in the Constitution is grounded on foreign allegiance. Article 155 (1)-(a) is not concerned with what constitutes a dual national as eligible for naturalization. So, a residency requirement doesn’t address the matter of allegiance—the sole condition that forbids dual nationals to participate in the National Assembly.
The prohibition against dual citizenship individuals in the National Assembly is nested in the security interest of the state on the basis of loyalty to the state. Perhaps reasons for this may include to guard against foreign collusion and to prevent the possibility of a conflict of interest due to dual oaths taken to “protect and serve” the interests and welfare of two countries. Obviously, in a state of potential foreign crisis involving the countries of dual nationals, sides will be chosen—whose is the question for a dual national in any Parliament.
Renunciation of an individual’s foreign citizenship offers one immediate way to reconcile the problem. Otherwise, the debate should be heavily shaped by what locals determine should be right for their state’s welfare and security, that is non-dual nationals including indigenous peoples.
So, the core issue to address for those in favour of dual nationals in Parliament is to strike a balance between a matter of ensuring state security and integrity and affording political opportunities to dual nationals, namely those who are Guyanese by birth but hold a foreign citizenship or are Guyanese through naturalization but hold a foreign citizenship. The responses given would no doubt be riddled with ethical implications.
Yours faithfully,
Ferlin Pedro
