Dear Editor,
Section 7 of Article 106 and Section 2 of Article 164, both of the Constitution of the Co-operative Republic of Guyana, make reference to what is possible with “the votes of not less than two-thirds of all elected members of the National Assembly.” In the former Section, a vote by the specified (super) majority would allow a government that has been defeated in a vote of confidence to remain in office and hold fresh elections within a period greater than the three months that would otherwise be inexorably and implacably warranted under the Constitution.
Article 164 refers to the procedure for altering the Constitution, and Section 2 of this Article seems to make it possible for that very supermajority of all elected members of the National Assembly to alter even the electoral system that is currently specified in Article 160. Article 182, on immunities of the President, can also be altered, and so too can a number of other Articles. Other Articles, such as the one to do with Guyana being in ‘the course of transition from capitalism to socialism’ cannot be altered in this way however.
The only snag might be that the President may not be obliged to give his assent to any Bill that seeks to alter the Constitution in this fashion.
One can only wonder at the electoral prospects of a political party that refused to agree to conditioning an extension under Section 7 of Article 106 on meaningful constitutional reform, if one or the other political parties were to propose it.
Yours faithfully,
Thomas B. Singh
Director
University of Guyana GREEN
Institution; and
Senior Lecturer
Dept. of Economics
University of Guyana
