Dear Editor,
I wish to add my voice to those who do not support Ministers and Members of Parliament being dual citizens and the AFC’s call for an amendment of the provision of the Constitution dealing with dual citizenship.
Firstly, this is a simple matter, if any individual wishes to serve Guyana as a Minister or a Member of Parliament, that person has to make a simple choice, either to retain their foreign citizenship and serve in another capacity or renounce their foreign citizenship. Therefore Minister Trotman’s and the AFC’s endeavour to proposed Constitutional amendments stating that this is a disservice to Guyana, is an overreach and a clear insult to Guyanese who have stayed in Guyana through the good and the not so good times.
Minister Trotman and the AFC have to be careful that they do not ‘throw out the baby and the bath water’. There is need for Constitutional reform in some areas; one of the main aspects to be amended is to facilitate political parties forming coalitions after the elections.
The Constitution is one of the, or rather it is the foundation document upon which the nation is built and stands. It is essentially the document that holds the many facets of our complicated society together. It is the document that influences the behaviour of individuals, institutions and the society. It is the document that forms a bridge across times – the past to some extent, the current and future. Therefore our lawmakers should be extremely careful with how they twist it and turn it to accommodate our ever changing moods, lest they reverse civilization in the process. The United States Constitution for example, is 229 years old, having been signed in 1787; and after 200 years, it is still the supreme document upon which that country stands.
One of the strengths of leadership is to govern based on principles which are grounded in the greater good the masses and wider society and not merely in the good of a few privileged. Another strength of good leadership is to have the foresight and understanding that decisions could have serious implications on future generations and hindsight to learn from the past.
Therefore, instead of the AFC advocating to amend the Constitution for persons with foreign citizenship to become Ministers and MPs, I wish to make the following suggestions. The AFC could develop a programme to build the capacity and nurture Guyanese who stayed and also possess the ability to become leaders. This programme should include exposure to various facets of the modern world – business, service, leadership, governance, decision making, etc., as well as to develop their ability to blend this with the indigenous (local) knowledge, to enable and accelerate the development of the country.
Secondly, the AFC could advocate for a programme as well as make the necessary amendments to include capable single citizenship Guyanese who do want to become members of a political party and would like to serve their country as Ministers and MPs. The ‘Political Party’ approach for identifying persons for Ministerial and MP positions is extremely limiting. There is no need for foreigners as Ministers and MPs if this base for selection could be broadened.
Thirdly, AFC could advocate for the removal of many retired persons with dual citizenship from senior substantive positions and replace them with younger professionals. A mentorship and coaching programme should be developed to accommodate the transfer of knowledge, skills and sharing of experiences to the younger professionals/generations.
There is need for the government to put a focus and to establish a more viable purpose for these elderly professionals and the context in which they provide their service which should be more from a nurturing perspective, while the younger professionals do the nation building.
What is a disservice is to have younger citizens who have children in primary and high schools and universities and who are struggling to manage and cope when they are in the prime of their lives, many of whom are qualified and should be more involved in nation-building at more senior levels, while so many retired professionals are placed in substantive positions.
What is a disservice is the perpetual insulting of those Guyanese who stayed and held the country together. It is the government’s responsibility to develop its citizens in a more constructive and sustainable way and to develop programmes to prepared them to assume positions of leadership and governance. This will be service to those who remained to serve as well as an incentive to the younger generations to stay.
If one is to judge by the current rate of progress of the country with the inputs of so many dual citizens over the past few years, then Minister Trotman’s and the AFC argument does not hold. What is more pervasive is a number of dual citizens who have not really contributed to strategic positioning, growth and development of the country but have nevertheless enjoyed much more superior benefits to what many similarly hard working Guyanese who stayed enjoy. What am I saying? I am saying that we need to rethink how we engage the diaspora; this must be from a more results-oriented perspective. We need more value for our money!
It is either Minister Trotman and AFC are for us or against us! We will not be presumptuous to tell them who to serve neither do we expect them to be presumptuous to attempt to change the Constitution to accommodate their personal choices.
Yours faithfully,
Audreyanna Thomas
