Dear Editor,
I read with interest Mr Ralph Ramkarran‘s column Election Legislation Reform in yesterday’s Sunday Stabroek. Among the matters dealt with in the column is the eligibility of non-resident Guyanese to vote in our elections. The Constitution allows both resident and non-resident persons to vote, once they are registered. And to be registered, the person needs to be over eighteen years old, who is a) a citizen of Guyana, or b) of a Commonwealth country domiciled and resident in Guyana for one year, and (emphasis added) who satisfies such other qualifications as prescribed by law.
Very recently, the court ruled that the names of such non-resident persons cannot be taken off the list of electors, other than by death: hence the apparent bloated list. Mr. Ramkarran suggests as a solution to the quandary of non-resident Guyanese citizens, either a constitutional amendment, or the placing of a residency requirement for eligibility to vote. The constitutional amendment will require a two-thirds vote in the National Assembly while the residency requirement only requires an amendment to the Representation of the People Act. I support the latter since I feel very strongly about any person not resident in and not subject to the country’s laws having the same rights and privileges as those who reside in Guyana. I should add that I am not sure that the test of domicile, a concept far different from residence, is properly applied with respect to voting by Commonwealth citizens.
Another assertion by Mr. Ramkarran which aroused my interest is that the Constitution provides for a “mixed electoral system whereby half the seats [in the National Assembly] can be elected by first past the post.” According to Mr. Ramkarran, all that is required is for the National Assembly to demarcate the thirty-three constituencies. The Constitution neither refers to first past the post nor specifies a number, but rather “not more than half”. In fact, years and years ago, Parliament designated twenty-five such seats within the country’s ten geographical constituencies. This was as simple as it was clean.
But true to form, Parliament proceeded to muddle the idea by requiring that only lists, aka political parties, contesting in six of the ten geographical constituencies, representing at least thirteen of the twenty-five seats, can participate in the elections. Whether this legislative contortion was part of a deal between and among political parties is unknown but this requirement is not sanctioned by the Constitution. In fact, having regard to successive rulings by the apex Court, the requirement is unconstitutional and therefore void.
Given how ineffective and weak our civil society is, I would have hoped that those smaller parties would have challenged this provision, asking the Court to strike it down along with any attendant measures. If Parliament ever has more than three individuals sitting as independent Members, the face of politics in this country would change dramatically and for the better. No longer would we have to listen to empty promises of constitutional reform and power sharing. They would become a reality.
Respectfully,
Christopher Ram
