Dear Editor,
I wish to address the issue of the reported calls in the Press for political decision-making by supermajorities (e.g., 67 percent vote in favor) instead of the existing simple majorities (50 percent plus one) to force consensus.
To begin with, it must be recognized that the principle of the need for supermajority for critically important and far-reaching legislation is already embedded in the Guyana Constitution. Article 164 of the Guyana Constitution requires the vote of at least two-thirds of the MPs in the National Assembly in order to alter the Constitution. And all over the world, it is not uncommon to find supermajority decision-making in democratic legislatures. The US Senate, for example, requires a 60 percent vote to overcome a filibuster with the practical result that passage of bills typically have to be supported by a 60-percent vote. Also, a two-thirds majority vote is required to override a Presidential veto.
Closer home, to be elected Presi-dent of Suriname requires, in the first instance, the support of two-thirds of the representatives in Parliament, and this arrangement appears to work smoothly, if not perfectly.
Consequently, Governments in Suriname are typically coalitions. At present, the Government is a coalition of four parties, including mainly the parties that draw their support from the Indo-Surinamese and Maroon communities. By contrast, it is worth noting that the Guyana Constitution does not even require a simple majority, never mind a supermajority, in order to win the Government. What all this amounts to is the need to consider what aspects of our legislative agenda rise to the level where the need for national consensus determines that a supermajority vote should be required.
An immediate matter that comes to mind, qualifying for such treatment, is passage of the national budget. That would force engagement and compromise among political parties and set the basis for a spending program with broad-based national buy-in and support. It could also lead to a more substantive dialogue in Parliament in place of the empty public performance we now call a budget debate. Further than that, the value of wholesale introduction of supermajority requirements across the board is questionable. This would result in gridlock, especially considering the acrimonious relationship that prevails between the major political parties at this time. We would end up with a Government that is hogtied by the need for every major decision to be approved by supermajority, and nothing gets done.
This would make the country ungovernable, which we cannot afford at this point in our development. While the use of supermajority decision-making is worth considering, it is not the only option. The system of proportional representation has within it mechanisms favouring political engagement and consensus-building in a multi-party, multi-social, multi-ethnic environment. That is how it works in other countries, and that’s what makes it such a popular system around the world. The trouble is that our present Constitution has electoral provisions that precisely frustrate and take away the incentives for such engagement among parties. We must concentrate on changing them.
These aspects of our constitution contribute to a winner-take-all environment that results in close to half the population feeling alienated and discriminated against, whatever the party in power. It also gives rise to the farcical nature of Parliamentary discourse where, indeed, the Legislature is nothing but a rubber stamp for the Executive. We end up with a system that promotes polarization instead. Therefore, while there may be an argument for the use of supermajority decision-making, we should be focusing on overhauling the existing electoral and constitutional provisions to strengthen the incentives for political consensus-building in the formation of the government and National Assembly.
One final point is worth stressing. Supermajority decision-making has relevance for the deal-making among politicians. Reforming the electoral processes will affect the decisions not only of the politicians, but more importantly of the citizens who elect them.
Sincerely,
Dr. Desmond Thomas
